linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] ondemand: Solve the big performance issue with ondemand during disk IO

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:	Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:29:01 -0700
From:	Mike Chan <mike@...roid.com>
To:	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Éric Piel <eric.piel@...mplin-utc.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	davej@...hat.com, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] ondemand: Solve the big performance issue with 
	ondemand during disk IO

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de> wrote:
> On Monday 19 April 2010 15:43:25 Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:29:47 +0200
>> Éric Piel <eric.piel@...mplin-utc.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > The problem and fix are both verified with the "perf timechar" tool.
>> > Hi,
>> > I don't doubt that keeping the cpu full frequency during IO can
>> > improve some specific workloads, however in your log message you
>> > don't explain how much we are loosing.
>>
>> first of all, it's so bad that people will just turn the whole power
>> management off... at which point fixing the really bad bug is actually
>> quite a win
> Not sure you fix a bug, I expect this was done on purpose.
> The ondemand governor disadvantages processes with alternating short CPU
> load peaks and idle sequences.
> IO bound processes typically show up with such a behavior.
>
> But I follow Eric and agree that if it costs that much, changing
> above sounds sane.
> Still, I could imagine some people might want to not raise freq on IO bound
> process activity, therefore this should get another ondemand param, similar
> to ignore_nice_load.
>

I agree with Thomas here. Some of these assumptions on IO / FSB
performance with cpu speed do not hold true on various ARM platforms.

Perhaps we could have a min_io_freq value? Which is the min speed for
the cpu to run at for IO bound activity. In the original patch,
min_io_freq = scaling_max_freq. For various arm devices I can happily
set min_io_freq to the lowest cpu speed that satisfies bus speeds.

-- Mike

>    Thomas
> --
> 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/
>
--
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/