linux-kernel - Re: RT-Scheduler/cgroups: Possible overuse of resources assigned via cpu.rt_period_us and cpu.rt_runtime

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: <1213799836.16944.244.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:37:16 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Daniel K." <dk@...no>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Max Krasnyanskiy <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: RT-Scheduler/cgroups: Possible overuse of resources assigned
	via cpu.rt_period_us and cpu.rt_runtime_us

On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 16:12 +0200, Daniel K. wrote:
> mkdir /dev/cgroup
> mount -t cgroup -o cpu,cpuset cgroup /dev/cgroup
> 
> mkdir /dev/cgroup/0
> 
> echo 3 > /dev/cgroup/0/cpuset.cpus
> echo 0 > /dev/cgroup/0/cpuset.mems
> echo 100000 > /dev/cgroup/0/cpu.rt_period_us
> echo   5000 > /dev/cgroup/0/cpu.rt_runtime_us
> 
> schedtool -R -p 1 -e burnP6 &
> [1] 3309
> echo 3309 > /dev/cgroup/0/tasks
> 
> At this point I'd expect the burnP6 task to use 5% of the available CPU
> resources in the cgroup (5000/100000), but the real CPU usage, as
> reported by top, is 20% This is 4 times the expected result, and as I
> have 4 cores, I think there is a strong hint of correlation there.
> 
> Maybe with a 4 core system there really is 4 000 000 us available for
> every 1 wall-time second?

Indeed. In effect each cpu (see below on specifics) gets the
runtime/period you specify, and it moves unused runtime between cpus.

> However, I have only assigned one core (3) to _this_ cgroup, so I think
> this cgroup is overusing its assigned resources.
> 
> What do you think?

I think you're on to something :-)

It uses root domains, that is the largest domain this cpu is part of
that has load-balancing enabled.

So while you have made your process part of the cgroup and the cpuset,
there is no strong relation between them, that is to say, I could either
mount the cpuset or cpu controller on a different mount point and add
tasks to one but not the other.

So the relation I used is that of load-balance domains.

So in order to get what you intended, do something like:


mount none /dev/cpuset cgroup -o cpuset
mount none /cgroup/cpu cgroup -o cpu

mkdir /dev/cpuset/root
mkdir /dev/cpuset/rt

#
# this might not actually make the kernel happy
# as it might attempt (and possibly succeed in)
# moving cpu bound kernel threads
#
for i in `cat /dev/cpuset/tasks`; do
	echo $i > /dev/cpuset/root/tasks;
done

echo 0-2 > /dev/cpuset/root/cpuset.cpus
echo 3 > /dev/cpuset/rt/cpuset.cpus

echo 0 > /dev/cpuset/cpuset.sched_load_balance

mkdir /cgroup/cpu/foo
echo 100000 > /cgroup/cpu/foo/cpu.rt_period_us
echo   5000 > /cgroup/cpu/foo/cpu.rt_runtime_us

echo $$ > /dev/cpuset/rt/tasks
echo $$ > /cgroup/cpu/foo/tasks

chrt -r -p 1 burnP6 &




--
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/