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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:37:59 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> To: Dan Hecht <dhecht@...are.com> CC: dwalker@...sta.com, cpufreq@...ts.linux.org.uk, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>, Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>, john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Subject: Re: Stolen and degraded time and schedulers Dan Hecht wrote: > With your previous definition of work time, would it be that: > > monotonic_time == work_time + stolen_time ?? (By monotonic time, I presume you mean monotonic real time.) Yes, I suppose you could, but I don't think that's terribly useful. I think work_time is probably most naturally measured in cpu clock cycles rather than an actual time unit. You could convert it to ns, but I don't see the point. I know its a term in general use, but I don't think the term "stolen time" is all that useful, particularly when we're talking about a more general notion of cpu work contributing to the progress of process execution. In the cpufreq case, time isn't "stolen" per se. (I guess I don't like the term stolen time because you don't refer to time spent on other processes as being stolen from your process: its just processor time being distributed.) > i.e. would you be defining stolen_time to include the time lost to > processes due to the cpu running at a lower frequency? How does this > play into the other potential users, besides sched_clock(), of stolen > time? We should make sure that the abstraction introduced here makes > sense in those places too. Be specific. What other uses are there? > For example, the stuff that happens in update_process_times(). I > think we'd want to account the stolen time to cpustat->steal. I guess we could do something for that. Would we account non-full-speed cpus to it? Maybe? How is cpustat->steal used? How does it get out to usermode? > Also we'd probably want account for stolen time with regards to > task_running_tick(). (Though, in the latter case, maybe we first have > to move the scheduler away from assuming HZ rate decrementing of > p->time_slice to get this right. i.e. remove the tick based assumption > from the scheduler, and then maybe stolen time falls in more naturally > when accounting time slices). I think the important part is that sched_clock() be used to actually compute how much time each process gets. The fact that a time quantum gets stolen is less important. Or do you mean something else? > I guess taking your cpufreq as an example of work_time progressing > slower than monotonic_time (and assuming that the remaining time is > what you would call stolen), then e.g. top would report 50% of your > cpu stolen when you cpu is running at 1/2 max rate. Yes. In the same way that clock modulation gates the cpu clock, the hypervisor effectively gates the clock by giving time to other vcpus. > And p->time_slice would decrement at 1/2 the rate it normally did when > running at 1/2 speed. Is this the right thing to do? If so, then I > agree it makes sense to model hypervisor stolen time in terms of your > "work time". Yes, that's my thought. > But, if not, then maybe the amount of work you can get done during a > period of time that is not stolen and the stolen time itself are > really two different notions, and shouldn't be confused. I can see > arguments both ways. It seems to me like a nice opportunity to solve two problems with one mechanism. J - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists