| 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: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:47:38 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [announce] CFS-devel, performance improvements
* Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> The rest of the math is indeed different - it's simply missing. What
> is there is IMO not really adequate. I guess you will see the
> differences, once you test a bit more with different nice levels.
Roman, i disagree strongly. I did test with different nice levels. Here
are some hard numbers: the CPU usage table of 40 busy loops started at
once, all running at a different nice level, from nice -20 to nice +19:
top - 12:25:07 up 19 min, 2 users, load average: 40.00, 39.15, 28.35
Tasks: 172 total, 41 running, 131 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
2455 root 0 -20 1576 248 196 R 20 0.0 3:47.56 loop
2456 root 1 -19 1576 244 196 R 16 0.0 3:03.96 loop
2457 root 2 -18 1576 244 196 R 13 0.0 2:24.80 loop
2458 root 3 -17 1576 248 196 R 10 0.0 1:58.63 loop
2459 root 4 -16 1576 244 196 R 8 0.0 1:33.04 loop
2460 root 5 -15 1576 248 196 R 7 0.0 1:14.73 loop
2461 root 6 -14 1576 248 196 R 5 0.0 0:59.61 loop
2462 root 7 -13 1576 244 196 R 4 0.0 0:47.95 loop
2463 root 8 -12 1576 248 196 R 3 0.0 0:38.31 loop
2464 root 9 -11 1576 244 196 R 3 0.0 0:30.54 loop
2465 root 10 -10 1576 244 196 R 2 0.0 0:24.47 loop
2466 root 11 -9 1576 244 196 R 2 0.0 0:19.52 loop
2467 root 12 -8 1576 248 196 R 1 0.0 0:15.63 loop
2468 root 13 -7 1576 248 196 R 1 0.0 0:12.56 loop
2469 root 14 -6 1576 248 196 R 1 0.0 0:10.00 loop
2470 root 15 -5 1576 244 196 R 1 0.0 0:07.99 loop
2471 root 16 -4 1576 244 196 R 1 0.0 0:06.40 loop
2472 root 17 -3 1576 244 196 R 0 0.0 0:05.09 loop
2473 root 18 -2 1576 244 196 R 0 0.0 0:04.05 loop
2474 root 19 -1 1576 248 196 R 0 0.0 0:03.26 loop
2475 root 20 0 1576 244 196 R 0 0.0 0:02.61 loop
2476 root 21 1 1576 244 196 R 0 0.0 0:02.09 loop
2477 root 22 2 1576 244 196 R 0 0.0 0:01.67 loop
2478 root 23 3 1576 244 196 R 0 0.0 0:01.33 loop
2479 root 24 4 1576 248 196 R 0 0.0 0:01.07 loop
2480 root 25 5 1576 244 196 R 0 0.0 0:00.84 loop
2481 root 26 6 1576 248 196 R 0 0.0 0:00.68 loop
2482 root 27 7 1576 248 196 R 0 0.0 0:00.54 loop
2483 root 28 8 1576 248 196 R 0 0.0 0:00.43 loop
2484 root 29 9 1576 248 196 R 0 0.0 0:00.34 loop
2485 root 30 10 1576 244 196 R 0 0.0 0:00.27 loop
2486 root 31 11 1576 248 196 R 0 0.0 0:00.21 loop
2487 root 32 12 1576 244 196 R 0 0.0 0:00.17 loop
2488 root 33 13 1576 244 196 R 0 0.0 0:00.13 loop
2489 root 34 14 1576 244 196 R 0 0.0 0:00.10 loop
2490 root 35 15 1576 244 196 R 0 0.0 0:00.08 loop
2491 root 36 16 1576 248 196 R 0 0.0 0:00.06 loop
2493 root 38 18 1576 248 196 R 0 0.0 0:00.03 loop
2492 root 37 17 1576 244 196 R 0 0.0 0:00.04 loop
2494 root 39 19 1576 244 196 R 0 0.0 0:00.02 loop
check a few select rows (the ratio of CPU time should be 1.25 at every
step) and see that CPU time is distributed very exactly. (and the same
is true for both -rc6 and -rc6-cfs-devel)
So even in this pretty extreme example (who on this planet runs 40 busy
loops with each loop on exactly one separate nice level, creating a load
average of 40.0 and expects perfect distribution after just a few
minutes?) CFS still distributes CPU time perfectly.
When you first raised accuracy issues i have asked you to provide
specific real-world examples showing any of the "problems" with nice
levels you implied to repeatedly:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/2/38
In the announcement of your "Really Fair Scheduler" patch you used the
following very strong statement:
" This model is far more accurate than CFS is [...]"
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/30/307
but when i stressed you for actual real-world proof of CFS misbehavior,
you said:
"[...] they have indeed little effect in the short term, [...] "
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/2/282
so how can CFS be "far less accurate" (paraphrased) while it has "little
effect in the short term"?
so to repeat my question: my (and Peter's) claim is that there is no
real-world significance of much of the complexity you added to avoid
rounding effects. You do disagree with that, so our follow-up question
is: what actual real-world significance does it have in your opinion?
What is the worst-case effect? Do we even care? We have measured it
every which way and it just does not matter. (but we could easily be
wrong, so please be specific if you know about something that we
overlooked.) Thanks,
Ingo
-
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