linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.24.2-rt2

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:	Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:38:49 +0100
From:	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: 2.6.24.2-rt2

Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> 
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> At this chance: We still see the same unbalanced sched-other load on our
>>> NUMA box as Gernot once reported [1]:
>>>
>>> top - 11:19:20 up 4 min,  1 user,  load average: 29.52, 9.54, 3.37
>>> Tasks: 502 total,  41 running, 461 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
>>> Cpu0  :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>>> Cpu1  :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>>> Cpu2  :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>>> Cpu3  :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>>> Cpu4  :  0.0%us,  0.3%sy,  0.0%ni, 99.7%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>>> Cpu5  :  0.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,100.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>>> Cpu6  :  0.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,100.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>>> Cpu7  :  0.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,100.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>>> Cpu8  :  0.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,100.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>>> Cpu9  :  0.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,100.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>>> Cpu10 :  0.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,100.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>>> Cpu11 :  0.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,100.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>>> Cpu12 :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>>> Cpu13 :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>>> Cpu14 :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>>> Cpu15 :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>>> Mem:  65513284k total,  1032032k used, 64481252k free,     6444k buffers
>>> Swap:  3204896k total,        0k used,  3204896k free,    37312k cached
>>>
>> ETOOMANYKERNELS, this was from 2.6.23.12-rt14. 2.6.24.2-rt2 shows a
>> different patter under identical load:
> 
> There has been CFS updates, which may account for the differences. Seems
> better though.
> 
>> top - 12:55:27 up 2 min,  1 user,  load average: 9.97, 2.42, 0.81
>> Tasks: 491 total,  42 running, 449 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
>> Cpu0  :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>> Cpu1  : 99.7%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.3%si,  0.0%st
>> Cpu2  :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>> Cpu3  :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>> Cpu4  :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>> Cpu5  :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>> Cpu6  :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>> Cpu7  :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>> Cpu8  :  0.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,100.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>> Cpu9  :  0.3%us,  0.3%sy,  0.0%ni, 99.3%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>> Cpu10 :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>> Cpu11 :  0.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,100.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>> Cpu12 :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>> Cpu13 :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>> Cpu14 :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>> Cpu15 :100.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,  0.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
>> Mem:  65512480k total,   580704k used, 64931776k free,     8964k buffers
>> Swap:  3204896k total,        0k used,  3204896k free,   129720k cached
>>
> 
> What's the NUMA topology?

4 nodes. I'm not sure if it is really NUMA related, but the same kernel
runs that test as expected on a non-NUMA 2x2 box.

> What tasks are running, and at what priorities?

40 pthreads, created with default parameters from a main thread which
runs with default parameters as well. The threads simply run endless loops.

> 
> Those three idle CPUS, should they have tasks running on them?

For sure, given the overload situation of the system (40x full load vs.
16 cores). Neither did we fiddle with any parameter of the system
(knowingly, its a standard openSUSE 10.3 underneath) nor did we set
thread affinities.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
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/