| 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: Tue, 27 May 2008 22:58:07 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, pj@....com, dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>, aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: fair group scheduler not so fair? On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 05:59:22PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > I then redid the test with two hogs in one group and three hogs in the > other group. Unfortunately, the cpu shares were not equally distributed > within each group. Using a 10-sec interval in "top", I got the following: I ran with this combination (2 in Group a and 3 in Group b) on top of the experimental patch I sent and here's what I get: 4350 root 20 0 1384 228 176 R 53.8 0.0 52:27.54 1 hoga 4542 root 20 0 1384 228 176 R 49.3 0.0 3:39.76 0 hoga 4352 root 20 0 1384 232 176 R 36.0 0.0 26:53.50 1 hogb 4351 root 20 0 1384 228 176 R 32.0 0.0 26:47.54 0 hogb 4543 root 20 0 1384 232 176 R 29.0 0.0 2:03.62 0 hogb Note that fairness (using load balance approach we have currently) works over a long window. Usually I observe with "top -d30". Higher the asymmetry of task-load distribution, longer it takes to converge to fairness. -- Regards, vatsa -- 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