linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: enforce per-cpu utilization limits on runtime balancing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:32:04 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Dario Faggioli <faggioli@...dalf.sssup.it>,
	Michael Trimarchi <michael@...dence.eu.com>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...is.sssup.it>,
	Tommaso Cucinotta <t.cucinotta@...up.it>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: enforce per-cpu utilization limits on
 runtime balancing

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 18:00 +0100, Fabio Checconi wrote:
> > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Date: Thu, Feb 25, 2010 09:28:23PM +0100
> >
> > On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 19:56 +0100, Fabio Checconi wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > +static inline unsigned long rt_init_free_bw(void)
> > > +{
> > > +       unsigned long used = to_ratio(global_rt_period(), global_rt_runtime());
> > > +
> > > +       return to_ratio(RUNTIME_INF, RUNTIME_INF) - used;
> > > +}
> > > +#endif
> > 
> > > +static void __rt_restart_balancing(void)
> > > +{
> > > +       unsigned long used, global, free;
> > > +       struct rq *rq;
> > > +       int i;
> > > +
> > > +       used = rt_used_bandwidth();
> > > +       global = to_ratio(RUNTIME_INF, RUNTIME_INF);
> > > +
> > > +       free = global - used;
> > 
> > 
> > We take the max as RUNTIME_INF instead of global_rt_* so that we can
> > move runtime around and fully saturate a single cpu (given there is
> > enough free to compensate on other cpus) ?
> 
> The only reason I've used RUNTIME_INF instead of global_rt_* is for the
> !GROUP_SCHED case, where using the global_rt_* values would make balancing
> have no effect at all (the initial value for def_rt_bandwidth already
> uses the maximum bw on each cpu) .  The current throttling implementation
> in this case still tries to concentrate bw on a single cpu, and I wanted
> to replicate the same behaviour.
> 
> Should I go for the global_rt_* values and add some #ifdef unreadability
> to avoid the balancing overhead in the !GROUP_SCHED case?


Nah, but adding a comment to clarify this might help.. I only asked
because it was not immediately obvious.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/