linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add group fairness to 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 25 May 2007 10:14:58 -0700
From:	"Li, Tong N" <tong.n.li@...el.com>
To:	vatsa@...ibm.com
Cc:	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, efault@....de,
	kernel@...ivas.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, pwil3058@...pond.net.au,
	tingy@...umass.edu, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add group fairness to CFS

On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 21:44 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > 
> > That assumes per-user scheduling groups; other configurations would
> > make it one step for each level of hierarchy. It may be possible to
> > reduce those steps to only state transitions that change weightings
> > and incremental updates of task weightings. By and large, one needs
> > the groups to determine task weightings as opposed to hierarchically
> > scheduling, so there are alternative ways of going about this, ones
> > that would even make load balancing easier.
> 
> Yeah I agree that providing hierarchical group-fairness at the cost of single 
> (or fewer) scheduling levels would be a nice thing to target for,
> although I don't know of any good way to do it. Do you have any ideas
> here? Doing group fairness in a single level, using a common rb-tree for tasks 
> from all groups is very difficult IMHO. We need atleast two levels.
> 
> One possibility is that we recognize deeper hierarchies only in user-space,
> but flatten this view from kernel perspective i.e some user space tool
> will have to distributed the weights accordingly in this flattened view
> to the kernel.

Nice work, Vatsa. When I wrote the DWRR algorithm, I flattened the
hierarchies into one level, so maybe that approach can be applied to
your code as well. What I did is to maintain task and task group weights
and reservations separately from the scheduler, while the scheduler only
sees one system-wide weight per task and does not concern about which
group a task is in. The key here is the system-wide weight of each task
should represent an equivalent share to the share represented by the
group hierarchies. To do this, the scheduler looks up the task and group
weights/reservations it maintains, and dynamically computes the
system-wide weight *only* when it need a weight for a given task while
scheduling. The on-demand weight computation makes sure the cost is
small (constant time). The computation itself can be seen from an
example: assume we have a group of two tasks and the group's total share
is represented by a weight of 10. Inside the group, let's say the two
tasks, P1 and P2, have weights 1 and 2. Then the system-wide weight for
P1 is 10/3 and the weight for P2 is 20/3. In essence, this flattens
weights into one level without changing the shares they represent.

  tong
-
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/