linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] scheduler fixes

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:	Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:12:22 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] scheduler fixes


* Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:

> Dunno about the IO bits, but..
>  
> The problem with the C++ testcases seems to be wake_up_all() plunking a 
> genuine thundering herd onto runqueues.  The sleeper fairness logic 
> places the entire herd left of min_vruntime, meaning N*sched_latency 
> pain for the poor sods who are setting the runqueue pace.

100 wakeup pairs that all run and ping-pong between each other?

That creates 200 tasks with an average system load of 100.0, on a 
dual-core system. Is that a fair representation of some real workload, or 
just an unrealistic "gee, look, given enough tasks running I can overload 
the system _this bad_" example?

	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/