linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] sched: automated per session task groups

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:	Sat, 4 Dec 2010 12:39:48 -0500
From:	Colin Walters <walters@...bum.org>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched: automated per session task groups

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:

> A recurring complaint from CFS users is that parallel kbuild has a negative
> impact on desktop interactivity.  This patch implements an idea from Linus,
> to automatically create task groups.  This patch only per session autogroups,
> but leaves the way open for enhancement.

Resurrecting this thread a bit, one question I didn't see discussed is simply:

Why doesn't "nice" work for this?  On my Fedora 14 system, "ps alxf"
shows almost everything in my session is running at the default nice
0.  The only exceptions are "/usr/libexec/tracker-miner-fs" at 19, and
pulseaudio at -11.

I don't know What would happen if say the scheduler effectively
group-scheduled each nice value?  Then, what we tell people to do is
run "nice make".  Which in fact, has been documented as a thing to do
for decades.  Actually I tend to use "ionice" too, which is also
useful if any of your desktop applications happen to make the mistake
of doing I/O in the mainloop (emacs fsync()ing in UI thread, I'm
looking at you).

Quickly testing kernel-2.6.35.6-48.fc14.x86_64 on a "Intel(R)
Core(TM)2 Quad CPU    Q9400  @ 2.66GHz", the difference between "make
-j 128" and "nice make -j 128" is quite noticeable.  As you'd expect.
The CFS docs already say:

"The CFS scheduler has a much stronger handling of nice levels and SCHED_BATCH
than the previous vanilla scheduler: both types of workloads are isolated much
more aggressively"

Does it just need to be even more aggressive, and people use "nice"?
--
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/