linux-kernel - Re: [patch] sched: accurate user accounting

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706150052190.3404@linmac.oyster.ru>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:56:27 +0400 (MSD)
From:	malc <av1474@...tv.ru>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: accurate user accounting

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:

>
> * Vassili Karpov <av1474@...tv.ru> wrote:
>
>> Hello Ingo and others,
>>
>> After reading http://lwn.net/Articles/236485/ and noticing few
>> refernces to accounting i decided to give CFS a try. With
>> sched-cfs-v2.6.21.4-16 i get pretty weird results, it seems like
>> scheduler is dead set on trying to move the processes to different
>> CPUs/cores all the time. And with hog (manually tweaking the amount
>> iterations) i get fairly strange resuls, first of all the process is
>> split between two cores, secondly while integral load provided by the
>> kernel looks correct, it's off by good 20 percent on each idividial
>> core.
>>
>> (http://www.boblycat.org/~malc/apc/hog-cfs-v16.png)
>>
>> Thought this information might be of some interest.
>
> hm - what does 'hog' do, can i download hog.c from somewhere?

http://www.boblycat.org/~malc/apc/hog.c and also a in
Documentation/cpu-load.txt.

>
> the alternating balancing might be due to an uneven number of tasks
> perhaps? If you have 3 tasks on 2 cores then there's no other solution
> to achieve even performance of each task but to rotate them amongst the
> cores.

One task, one thread. I have also tried to watch fairly demanding video
(Elephants Dream in 1920x1080/MPEG4) with mplayer, and CFS moves the
only task between cores almost every second.

>> P.S. How come the /proc/stat information is much closer to reality
>>      now? Something like what Con Kolivas suggested was added to
>>      sched.c?
>
> well, precise/finegrained accounting patches have been available for
> years, the thing with CFS is that there we get them 'for free', because
> CFS needs those metrics for its own logic. That's why this information
> is much closer to reality now. But note: right now what is affected by
> the changes in the CFS patches is /proc/PID/stat (i.e. the per-task
> information that 'top' and 'ps' displays, _not_ /proc/stat) - but more
> accurate /proc/stat could certainly come later on too.

Aha. I see, it's just that integral load for hog is vastly improved
compared to vanilla 2.6.21 (then again some other tests are off by a few
percent (at least), though they were fine with Con's patch (which was
announced at the beginning of this thread))

-- 
vale
-
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/