linux-kernel - Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]

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]

Message-ID: <20070418121304.GA878@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:13:04 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steve Fox <drfickle@...ibm.com>,
	Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 11:53:34AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
> 
> > So looking at elapsed time, a granularity of 100ms is just behind the 
> > mainline score. However it is using slightly less user time and 
> > slightly more idle time, which indicates that balancing might have got 
> > a bit less aggressive.
> > 
> > But anyway, it conclusively shows the efficiency impact of such tiny 
> > timeslices.
> 
> yeah, the 4% drop in a CPU-cache-sensitive workload like kernbench is 
> not unexpected when going to really frequent preemption. Clearly, the 
> default preemption granularity needs to be tuned up.
> 
> I think you said you measured ~3msec average preemption rate per CPU? 

This was just looking at ctxsw numbers from running 2 cpu hogs on the
same runqueue.

> That would suggest the average cache-trashing cost was 120 usecs per 
> every 3 msec window. Taking that as a ballpark figure, to get the 
> difference back into the noise range we'd have to either use ~5 msec:
> 
>     echo 5000000 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_granularity
> 
> or 15 msec:
> 
>     echo 15000000 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_granularity
> 
> (depending on whether it's 5x 3msec or 5x 1msec - i'm still not sure i 
> correctly understood your 3msec value. I'd have to know your kernbench 
> workload's approximate 'steady state' context-switch rate to do a more 
> accurate calculation.)

The kernel compile (make -j8 on 4 thread system) is doing 1800 total
context switches per second (450/s per runqueue) for cfs, and 670
for mainline. Going up to 20ms granularity for cfs brings the context
switch numbers similar, but user time is still a % or so higher. I'd
be more worried about compute heavy threads which naturally don't do
much context switching.

Some other numbers on the same system
Hackbench:	2.6.21-rc7	cfs-v2 1ms[*]	nicksched
10 groups: Time: 1.332		0.743		0.607
20 groups: Time: 1.197		1.100		1.241
30 groups: Time: 1.754		2.376		1.834
40 groups: Time: 3.451		2.227		2.503
50 groups: Time: 3.726		3.399		3.220
60 groups: Time: 3.548		4.567		3.668
70 groups: Time: 4.206		4.905		4.314
80 groups: Time: 4.551		6.324		4.879
90 groups: Time: 7.904		6.962		5.335
100 groups: Time: 7.293		7.799		5.857
110 groups: Time: 10.595	8.728		6.517
120 groups: Time: 7.543		9.304		7.082
130 groups: Time: 8.269		10.639		8.007
140 groups: Time: 11.867	8.250		8.302
150 groups: Time: 14.852	8.656		8.662
160 groups: Time: 9.648		9.313		9.541

Mainline seems pretty inconsistent here.

lmbench 0K ctxsw latency bound to CPU0:
tasks
2		2.59		3.42		2.50
4		3.26		3.54		3.09
8		3.01		3.64		3.22
16		3.00		3.66		3.50
32		2.99		3.70		3.49
64		3.09		4.17		3.50
128		4.80		5.58		4.74
256		5.79		6.37		5.76

cfs is noticably disadvantaged.

[*] 500ms didn't make much difference in either test.

-
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/