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 17:28:47 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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

On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 17:12 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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?

Looks contrived to me, but it is a hole.  Dang sleepers, can't live with
'em can't live without 'em.

	-Mike

--
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/