| 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: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 18:20:40 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
Subject: SD scheduler testing hitch
On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 11:24 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > Where are we at with staircase anyway? Is it looking like a 2.6.22
> > thing? I don't personally think we've yet seen enough serious
> > performance testing to permit a merge, apart from other issues...
>
> yes, that's my thinking too at the moment. I'd also like to see a
> summary of 'open design questions' list from Mike (if Mike has
> time/energy for that?) - many questions were raised, a good number of
> them were answered, various changes done to SD but there's no good
> summary of the current state of affairs.
I'm working on it. I started testing fairness, but ran into a snag.
What I was testing was my theory that SD can't possibly be fair to
sleeping tasks because the differential between long burn short sleep
tasks and long sleep short burn tasks is tossed at the end of every
rotation. That theory seems to be true, but here's the snag...
2.6.21-rc6-sd-0.39, box is 3GHz P4/HT
tenpercent: tenpercent.c compiled to run 1 10% duty cycle task.
100ms and friends: tenpercent.c hard coded for N ms burn + 1 usec sleep.
taskset -c 1 ./tenpercent
taskset -c 1 ./100ms (or ilk)
top - 10:47:57 up 3:11, 13 users, load average: 1.65, 1.63, 2.50
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ P COMMAND
7357 root 9 0 1568 440 360 R 92 0.0 10:55.01 1 100ms
7356 root 1 0 1568 444 360 S 8 0.0 1:00.01 1 tenpercent
5557 root 1 0 164m 21m 4876 S 0 2.1 1:58.90 0 Xorg
6343 root 3 0 2376 1068 768 R 0 0.1 2:51.19 0 top
top - 11:05:16 up 3:29, 13 users, load average: 1.52, 1.50, 1.81
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ P COMMAND
7395 root 5 0 1568 444 360 R 90 0.0 8:54.25 1 100ms
7394 root 0 -10 1568 440 360 S 10 0.0 1:00.21 1 tenpercent
6343 root 3 0 2376 1068 768 R 0 0.1 3:04.16 0 top
1 root 1 0 736 288 240 S 0 0.0 0:00.90 0 init
top - 11:20:58 up 3:44, 13 users, load average: 1.89, 1.87, 1.78
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ P COMMAND
7429 root 2 -10 1568 444 360 R 92 0.0 12:03.81 1 100ms
7428 root 0 -10 1568 444 360 R 8 0.0 1:00.08 1 tenpercent
6343 root 3 0 2376 1068 768 R 1 0.1 3:19.36 0 top
1 root 1 0 736 288 240 S 0 0.0 0:00.90 0 init
top - 12:22:27 up 4:46, 13 users, load average: 1.90, 1.92, 1.94
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ P COMMAND
8235 root 1 -20 1568 444 360 R 95 0.0 19:31.20 1 100ms
8234 root 0 -20 1568 444 360 S 5 0.0 1:00.01 1 tenpercent
6343 root 3 0 2376 1068 768 R 1 0.1 4:24.24 0 top
4926 root 1 0 1820 632 544 S 0 0.1 0:02.34 0 hald-addon-stor
top - 13:38:22 up 6:02, 13 users, load average: 1.53, 1.51, 1.51
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ P COMMAND
8643 root 5 0 1564 444 360 R 93 0.0 12:15.49 1 50ms
8642 root 1 0 1564 444 360 S 7 0.0 1:00.28 1 tenpercent
6343 root 3 0 2376 1080 768 R 0 0.1 5:27.22 0 top
1 root 1 0 736 288 240 S 0 0.0 0:00.91 0 init
top - 14:02:39 up 6:26, 13 users, load average: 1.75, 1.71, 1.56
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ P COMMAND
8726 root 5 0 1564 444 360 R 94 0.0 15:19.07 1 8ms
8727 root 1 0 1564 444 360 R 6 0.0 1:00.11 1 tenpercent
5557 root 1 0 164m 21m 4632 S 0 2.1 3:20.92 0 Xorg
6079 root 1 0 31584 17m 12m S 0 1.7 0:04.35 0 konsole
top - 16:22:01 up 8:45, 13 users, load average: 1.73, 1.81, 1.60
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ P COMMAND
10622 root 1 0 1428 264 212 R 98 0.0 10:00.43 1 xx
10621 root 1 0 1564 440 360 S 1 0.0 0:06.49 1 tenpercent
10423 root 3 0 2248 1052 764 R 0 0.1 0:27.45 0 top
1 root 1 0 736 288 240 S 0 0.0 0:00.91 0 init
xx.c just tries to terminate the rotation if it gets preempted, and
seems to succeed. It usually isn't this bad, but every few starts it
gets this bad. I thought it might be screwing up the calibration of
tenpercent if xx started first, but I plugged it into tenp.c (attached)
after the calibration, and still see this every few starts. It always
gets more cpu than it should, but sometimes it's extreme.
I have yet to see tenpercent start at 1 percent usage in many many
tries, but I just repeated it with the attached in seven tries.
xx.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#define max(a,b) ((a) > (b) ? (a) : (b))
#define min(a,b) ((a) < (b) ? (a) : (b))
int main(void)
{
struct timeval then, now;
struct timespec t = {0, 1000}, r;
for(;;) {
int t1, t2;
short i;
if (gettimeofday(&then, 0))
break;
for (i = 1; i > 0; i++);
if (gettimeofday(&now, 0))
break;
t2 = max(then.tv_usec, now.tv_usec);
t1 = min(then.tv_usec, now.tv_usec);
if (t2 - t1 >= 1000 && nanosleep(&t, &r))
break;
}
return 0;
}
View attachment "fairtest.c" of type "text/x-csrc" (4380 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists