linux-kernel - Re: cgroup, balance RT bandwidth

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: <1236695198.25234.329.camel@laptop>
Date:	Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:26:38 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Rolando Martins <rolando.martins@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cgroup, balance RT bandwidth

On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 11:49 +0000, Rolando Martins wrote:
> Just to confirm, cpuset.sched_load_balance doesn't work with RT, right?

It should. It should split the RT balance domain just the same.

> You cannot have tasks for sub-domain 2 to utilize bandwidth of
> sub-domain 3, right?

If you disabled load-balancing on your root domain (1 below) then
indeed, tasks from 2 will not be able to consume bandwidth from tasks in
3.

The available bandwidth is related to the number of cpus in the balance
domain.

> 
>                               __1__
>                              /        \
>                             2         3
>                       (50% rt)  (50% rt )
> 
> For my application domain it would be interesting to have
> rt_runtime_ns as a min. of allocated rt and not a max.

> Ex. If an application of domain 2 needs to go up to 100% and domain 3
> is idle, then it would be cool to let it utilize the full bandwidth.

> (we also could have a hard upper limit in each sub-domain, like
> hard_up=0.8, i.e. even if we could get 100%, we will only utilize
> 80%); in other words, rt having the same cpu bandwidth management behavior
> as the "best-effort" tasks.
> 
> Could this be done?

Possibly, but since RT scheduling is all about determinism, I see no use
in adding something best-effort -- that simply defeats the purpose.

--
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/