linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 RFC 3/3] kvm: Check system load and handle different commit cases accordingly

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:27:52 +0530
From:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Srikar <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Jiannan Ouyang <ouyang@...pitt.edu>,
	Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>,
	"Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 RFC 3/3] kvm: Check system load and handle different
 commit cases accordingly

On 10/29/2012 11:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 19:37 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * A load of 2048 corresponds to 1:1 overcommit
>> + * undercommit threshold is half the 1:1 overcommit
>> + * overcommit threshold is 1.75 times of 1:1 overcommit threshold
>> + */
>> +#define COMMIT_THRESHOLD (FIXED_1)
>> +#define UNDERCOMMIT_THRESHOLD (COMMIT_THRESHOLD >> 1)
>> +#define OVERCOMMIT_THRESHOLD ((COMMIT_THRESHOLD << 1) -
>> (COMMIT_THRESHOLD >> 2))
>> +
>> +unsigned long kvm_system_load(void)
>> +{
>> +       unsigned long load;
>> +
>> +       load = avenrun[0] + FIXED_1/200;
>> +       load = load / num_online_cpus();
>> +
>> +       return load;
>> +}
>
> ARGH.. no that's wrong.. very wrong.
>
>   1) avenrun[] EXPORT_SYMBOL says it should be removed, that's not a
> joke.

Okay.

>   2) avenrun[] is a global load, do not ever use a global load measure

This makes sense. Using a local optimization that leads to near global
optimization is the way to go.

>
>   3) avenrun[] has nothing what so ever to do with runqueue lengths,
> someone with a gazillion tasks in D state will get a huge load but the
> cpu is very idle.
>

I used loadavg as an alternative measure. But the above condition
poses a concern for that.

Okay, now IIUC, usage of *any* global measure is bad?

Because I was also thinking to use nrrunning()/ num_online_cpus(), to
get an idea of global overcommit sense. (ofcourse since, this involves
iteration over per CPU nrrunning, I wanted to calculate this
periodically)

The overall logic, of having overcommit_threshold, 
undercommit_threshold, I wanted to use for even dynamic ple_window 
tuning purpose.

so logic was:
< undercommit_threshold => 16k ple_window
 > overcommit_threshold  => 4k window.
for in between case scale the ple_window accordingly.

The alternative was to decide depending on how ple handler succeeded in
yield_to. But I thought, that is too sensitive and more overhead.

This topic may deserve different thread, but thought I shall table it here.

So, Thinking about the alternatives to implement, logic such as

(a) if(undercommitted)
     just go back and spin rather than going for yield_to iteration.
(b) if (overcommitted)
    better to yield rather than  spinning logic

    of current patches..

[ ofcourse, (a) is already met to large extent by your patches..]

So I think everything boils down to

"how do we measure these two thresholds without much overhead in a
compliant way"

Ideas welcome..

--
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/