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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:00:05 +0200 From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> Subject: Re: RFC [patch] sched: strengthen LAST_BUDDY and minimize buddy induced latencies V3 On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 16:28 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 06:24 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 12:24 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > sched: strengthen LAST_BUDDY and minimize buddy induced latencies. > > > > > > This patch restores the effectiveness of LAST_BUDDY in preventing pgsql+oltp > > > from collapsing due to wakeup preemption. It also minimizes buddy induced > > > latencies. x264 testcase spawns new worker threads at a high rate, and was > > > being affected badly by NEXT_BUDDY. It turned out that CACHE_HOT_BUDDY was > > > thwarting idle balancing. This patch ensures that the load can disperse, > > > and that buddies can't make any task excessively late. > > > > > Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c > > > =================================================================== > > > --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c > > > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c > > > @@ -2007,8 +2007,12 @@ task_hot(struct task_struct *p, u64 now, > > > > > > /* > > > * Buddy candidates are cache hot: > > > + * > > > + * Do not honor buddies if there may be nothing else to > > > + * prevent us from becoming idle. > > > */ > > > if (sched_feat(CACHE_HOT_BUDDY) && > > > + task_rq(p)->nr_running >= sched_nr_latency && > > > (&p->se == cfs_rq_of(&p->se)->next || > > > &p->se == cfs_rq_of(&p->se)->last)) > > > return 1; > > > > I'm not sure about this. The sched_nr_latency seems arbitrary, 1 seems > > like a more natural boundary. > > How about the below? I started thinking about a vmark et al, and > figured I'd try taking LAST_BUDDY a bit further, ie try even harder to > give the CPU back to a preempted task so it can go on it's merry way > rightward. Vmark likes the idea, as does mysql+oltp and of course pgsql > +oltp is happier (preempt userland spinlock holder -> welcome to pain) > > That weird little dip right after mysql+oltp peak is still present, and > I don't understand why. I've squabbled with that bugger before. > > Full retest (pulled tip v2.6.32-rc5-1497-ga525b32) > > vmark > tip 108466 messages per second > tip++ 121151 messages per second This patchlet, unlike the one I showed you and Ingo offline, also passed interactivity testing. But... It also displays this interesting (to me) property, as did the other, why I now go try the same with virgin source. When running vmark with amarok playing (light perturbation), this is the throughput. 142077 messages per second 140138 messages per second 140264 messages per second That's three three run averages. Now, virgin tip. 112511 messages per second 112048 messages per second 115717 messages per second ((112511+112048+115717)/3)/108466 = 1.045 ((142077+140138+140264)/3)/121151 = 1.162 Both kernels achieve better throughput with perturbation. The unperturbed numbers are stable enough to pique my curiosity spot. (theory baking, not gonna air it;) -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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists