Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 19 Jul 2021 12:44:55 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rickyiu@google.com, wvw@google.com,
        patrick.bellasi@matbug.net, xuewen.yan94@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] sched: Introduce RLIMIT_UCLAMP
Message-ID: <YPVltxfROeSYuahM@google.com>
References: <20210623123441.592348-1-qperret@google.com>
 <20210623123441.592348-4-qperret@google.com>
 <20210701105014.ewrg4nt5sn3eg57o@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <YN2vj8OeZI7PBdzU@google.com>
 <20210701175248.qxnoo6cu7ts2dpys@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <YN8GaVjWXJp5IL06@google.com>
 <20210708113602.sjb4krzvs7xjmtt4@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210708113602.sjb4krzvs7xjmtt4@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Qais,

On Thursday 08 Jul 2021 at 12:36:02 (+0100), Qais Yousef wrote:
> Hi Quentin
> 
> Apologies about the delayed response.

It's my turn to apologize -- the last few days have been a pretty busy :/

> After I replied to most of your email I discovered the cause of the confusion,
> but left my reply intact. So please read till the end before you reply ;-)
> 
> On 07/02/21 12:28, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > There are several thoughts actually. A bit hard to articulate at this time of
> > > day, but let me try.
> > > 
> > > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_util_clamp_min/max are system wide limits. RLIMIT_UCLAMP
> > > seems to want to mimic it, so it makes sense for both to behave similarly.
> > > Preventing task from requesting a boost (raising UCLAMP_MIN) is different from
> > > preventing a task going above performance point (raising UCLAMP_MAX).
> > 
> > I don't really see why -- as you've already explained tasks can just
> > busy loop to inflate their util values. So limiting the min clamp of
> > task alone will never be an effective mechanism to limit how much
> > capacity a task can ask for.
> 
> It's about what the API means and how ultimately the end user should be use and
> benefit from it. I don't think we're on the same page here. Let me try to
> explain better (hopefully) :)
> 
> The system wide controls already split the uclamp min and uclamp max. Each
> request delivers a different meaning is what I'm saying. So lumping them under
> one control needs at least more explanation of what is the big picture behind
> it to warrant contradicting how the system wide limits already behave. And what
> this single system knob means from user perspective; outside your specific use
> case.
> 
> For instance, why this scenario is not allowed?
> 
> 	RLIMIT_UCLAMP_MIN = 200
> 	RLIMIT_UCLAMP_MAX = 1024
> 
> 	This task can boost itself up to 200 then must 'suffer' DVFS/migration
> 	delays to reach maximum performance point.

I just don't see how this would help at all. IMO the rlimit stuff is
only useful to allow root to limit how much a task can ask for itself,
and it doesn't really matter if the task inflates its request via
uclamp.min, or by increasing it's uclamp.max and spinning on the CPU.
That is, I just can't imagine how having different values for
RLIMIT_UCLAMP_MIN and RLIMIT_UCLAMP_MAX would be useful in practice.

> Which is basically what you can do with the sysctl_sched_util_clamp_min/max but
> they apply globally (and impact the effective uclamp value).
> 
> It's a valid way to control resource requests. Uclamp doesn't guarantee any
> allocations anyway; it's just a hint that hopefully will work most of the time
> and will be limited by thermal issues or oversubscribed system type of
> problems.
> 
> A more realistic use case would be
> 
> 	RLIMIT_UCLAMP_MIN = 0
> 	RLIMIT_UCLAMP_MAX = 512
>
> So a task can't boost itself but allowed to run at half the system performance
> point if it becomes busy.

That's not really what this would mean. What the above means is that a
task is allowed to override the uclamp max set by root as long as it
stays below 512. The actual uclamp.max set by root could be different
from 512.

And IMO the only realistic configurations would be either

 	RLIMIT_UCLAMP_MIN = 0
 	RLIMIT_UCLAMP_MAX = 0

which means that tasks can never increase their clamps, root decides
their importance, but they're free to opt out.

Or:

 	RLIMIT_UCLAMP_MIN = 512
 	RLIMIT_UCLAMP_MAX = 512

Which means that root allows this task to ask for anything in the 0-512
range. The use case I'd see for this is: root sets the uclamp.max of the
task to 512 and the rlimit to the same value. With that root is
guaranteed that the clamped util of the task will never exceed 512. The
task can do whatever it wants in that range (spin on the CPU or boost
itself via uclamp min) it doesn't matter: it can't escape the limit.

This is what I feel is the use for the rlimit stuff: it allows root to
put restrictions, and to have guarantees about those restrictions
being respected. So, I don't see how separate rlimits for uclamp min
and max would help really.

> Which effectively will prevent short bursty tasks
> from achieving high performance points, but allow long running ones to achieve
> higher performance points to meet their demand and would be capped at 512.

I doubt anybody could make use of this TBH. I can imaging the framework
saying "I don't want this task to ask for more than X of capacity", but I
can't really see how it could reason about allowing long running tasks
but not short ones, or anything like that...

> In all these cases we're assuming a cooperative apps and framework. If there's
> a malicious app, then this API could still be useful to block these power
> viruses without having to kill them.
> 
> The way I see it is that we're introducing RLIMIT API to deal with more than
> just on/off switch. I think we need to discuss these potential other use cases
> and make sure this API is generic enough to suite them.
> 
> The RLIMIT API will become most useful in a world where we have apps that
> dynamically manage their performance running in an evnrionment where there's
> a 'master' uclamp planner that wants to limit what this app can 'perceive' and
> are allowed to achieve in terms of performance/power.
> 
> I'd be very happy if this world becomes a reality, I think it's the right way
> forward. But for the time being we're just anticipating and guessing. The only
> use case we have is on/off. This use case can't dictate the overall theme of
> the API though. You can actually view it as a corner case.
> 
> > > > Because this is exactly how rlimit already works for nice or rt
> > > > priorities. Tasks are always allowed to decrease their 'importance'
> > > > (that is, increase their nice values for ex.), but are limited in how
> > > > they can increase it.
> > > > 
> > > > See the __sched_setscheduler() permission checks for nice values and
> > > > such.
> > > 
> > > I thought we already established that uclamp doesn't have security or fairness
> > > implications and tasks are free to change it the way they want? This
> > > implementation is close to v1 otherwise; we wanted to improve on that?
> > 
> > Sorry but I'm not sure to understand what you mean here :/
> > I thought we agreed that it was _not_ always OK to let tasks drive their
> > own clamps values ...
> 
> Yeah that's still the case. What I'm saying is that if we set
> 
> 	RLIMIT_UCLAMP = 512
> 
> means the task is allowed to change its uclamp value in the 0-512 range. It
> just can't go above. The default value RLIMIT_INIFINITY should preserve the
> old behavior as we agreed which is set it anywhere in the range between 0-1024.
> 
> Why the rlimit should impose the 'only can be lowered' behavior?
> 
> The 'only can be lowered' means:
> 
> 	p->uclamp[UCLAMP_MIN] = 300
> 
> 	with RLIMIT_UCLAMP = 512
> 
> according to you what should happen:
> 
> 	p->uclamp[UCLAMP_MIN] can only be changed to 0-300. If the user changes
> 	it to 200 for instance, then the new range is 0-200. And so on.
> 	A new value of 400 will return EPERM.
> 
> according to what I'm saying:
> 
> 	p->uclamp[UCLAMP_MIN] can only be changed to 0-512. Only value above
> 	512 will get -EPERM. So a new value of 400 will be accepted since it
> 	doesn't break RLIMIT_UCLAMP = 512.
> 
> As of mainline code today, a task can choose any value in the range 1024 for
> its own. I don't agree to impose a new behavior to impose lowering the value
> only. I don't think this behavior fits the uclamp story as I tried to explain
> before. Apps are free to manage their uclamp values. I appreciate a framework
> could set a limit of what they can request, but they should still be free to
> pick any value within this limit.
> 
> > 
> > > I think RLIMIT_UCLAMP should set an upper bound, and that's it.
> > 
> > Well that is the core of our disagreement, but I think we should be
> > consitent with the existing mechanisms.
> 
> RLIMIT only imposes not going above a value, no? Does it say the attribute must
> be 'lowered' only if RLIMIT is set? I don't see a correlation.
> 
> > 
> > Today any unprivileged task can increase its nice value, and there is
> > nothing root can do to prevent that, irrespective of rlimit.
> 
> Can or can't? Unpriviliged users can only lower nice values even without
> RLIMIT, no? That could be what I'm missing although when I read the code it
> clearly will always fail when the requested nice value is not >= the current
> task nice value. The rlimit check is 'don't care' if that's not true.
> 
> 	if (attr->sched_nice < task_nice(p) && ...
> 
> > 
> > If root uses rlimit to prevent an unprivileged task from lowering its
> > nice value below, say, 0 (in the [-20, 19] range), then if that task
> > already has nice -15, it will be allowed to increase it to e.g. nice
> > -10, even if that exceeds the rlimit:
> > 
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.13/source/kernel/sched/core.c#L6127
> > 
> > Tasks are always allowed to decrease their own 'importance' for nice and
> > RT priorities, and I don't see why we should do anything different for
> > uclamp.
> 
> Ah, I think the inverted meaning of 'increase' for nice might be catching us
> here. Yes for nice unprivileged can decrease their importance (which means
> increase their nice value).
> 
> Hopefully I explained my thoughts about uclamp better above. I think for uclamp
> we just need to impose it doesn't exceed the RLIMIT. It can be increased or
> decreased within the RLIMIT range.
> 
> And I think I get your point now about 'exceeding' the RLIMIT. You're talking
> about the corner case I mentioned before of
> 
> 	p->uclamp[UCLAMP_MAX] = 1024
> 
> but then
> 
> 	RLIMIT_UCALMP = 512
> 
> what you're saying is that it's okay for a task to decrease it to 800 here
> although that will exceed the RLIMIT, right?
> 
> Okay. I'm not sure how this corner case should be handled. But I hear your it
> could be the consistent behavior to adopt here if that' what nice and priority
> allow to happen already.
> 
> > 
> > Rlimit only comes into play when a task tries to increase its importance.
> > So that's what the above check tries to implement.
> 
> Hmm the way I read the code is that we unconditionally prevent a task from
> increasing its importance. And that what I was objecting to (beside the
> question of the corner case above).
> 
> /me revisits the code again
> 
> Okay I indeed misread the code. Sorry about that. I think we're aligned now ;-)
> 
> It indeed allows moving in the [0:RLIMIT_UCLAMP] range except to handle the
> corner case above.

Right, so I won't reply to all the above comments, but yes I think we're
in line now ;-)

> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > It just shouldn't be outside the specified limit, no?
> > > > > 
> > > > > And I think there's a bug in this logic. If UCLAMP_MIN was 1024 then the
> > > > > RLIMIT_UCLAMP was lowered to 512, the user will be able to change UCLAMP_MIN to
> > > > > 700 for example because of the
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	return value <= p->uclamp_req[clamp_id].value || ...
> > > > 
> > > > Right, but again this is very much intentional and consistent with the
> > > > existing behaviour for RLIMIT_NICE and friends. I think we should stick
> > > > with that for the new uclamp limit unless there is a good reason to
> > > > change it.
> > > 
> > > Like above. I don't see the two limits are the same. Uclamp is managing
> > > a different resource that doesn't behave like nice IMO. Apps are free to
> > > lower/raise their uclamp value as long as they don't exceed the limit set by
> > > RLIMIT_UCLAMP.
> > 
> > And like above, I don't see why uclamp should not behave like the
> > existing scheduler-related rlimits :)
> 
> Hopefully we're on the same page now. I was seeing this condition to always
> impose lowering for some reason and that's what created the confusion.
> 
> > 
> > > > > I think we should just prevent the requested value to be above the limit. But
> > > > > the user can lower and increase it within that range. ie: for RLIMIT_UCLAMP
> > > > > = 512, any request in the [0:512] range is fine.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Also if we set RLIMIT_UCLAMP = 0, then the user will still be able to change
> > > > > the uclamp value to 0, which is not what we want. We need a special value for
> > > > > *all requests are invalid*.
> > > > 
> > > > And on this one again this is all for consistency :)
> > > 
> > > But this will break your use case. If android framework decided to boost a task
> > > to 300, then the task itself decides to set its boost to 0, it'll override that
> > > setting, no? Isn't against what you want?
> > 
> > No, I don't think we have a problem with that. The problem we have is
> > that today the framework has essentially no control what-so-ever over
> > per-task clamp values. With the rlimit stuff we can at least limit the
> > range that tasks are allowed to ask for.
> > 
> > > We could make 0 actually behave as *all requests are invalid*.
> > 
> > I don't have a fundamental problem with that. Feels a little odd to have
> > a special value in the range, but that could probably be useful, so why
> > not ...
> 
> If setting it to 0 will not break your use case, then we can look at not
> imposing that. Although if the API will not allow to prevent the user from
> modifying the uclamp values at all, something will be missing in the API IMO.
> 
> Let me think if there are other alternatives to consider. A limit of 0 could be
> interpreted as no requests allowed. It makes sense logically to me. But maybe
> we can do better, hmmm

Alright, I feel like this rlimit stuff is going to need a bit more
discussion, so I'll re-post patches 01 and and 02 separately as they're
really just fixes, and we can continue bike-shedding on this one in the
meantime :)

Cheers,
Quentin