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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 15:57:08 -0400 From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> Subject: Re: [RFC patch 1/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running * Peter Zijlstra (peterz@...radead.org) wrote: > On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 13:37 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > Its not at all clear what or why you're doing what exactly. > > What we used to have is: > > period -- time in which each task gets scheduled once > > This period was adaptive in that we had an ideal period > (sysctl_sched_latency), but since keeping to this means that each task > gets latency/nr_running time. This is undesired in that it means busy > systems will over-schedule due to tiny slices. Hence we also had a > minimum slice (sysctl_sched_min_granularity). > > This yields: > > period := max(sched_latency, nr_running * sched_min_granularity) > > [ where we introduce the intermediate: > nr_latency := sched_latency / sched_min_granularity > in order to avoid the multiplication where possible ] > > Now you introduce a separate preemption measure, sched_gran as: > > sched_std_granularity; nr_running <= 8 > sched_gran := { > max(sched_min_granularity, sched_latency / nr_running) > > Which doesn't make any sense at all, because it will either be larger or > as large as the current sched_min_granularity. > > And you break the above definition of period by replacing nr_latency by > 8. > > Not at all charmed, this look like random changes without conceptual > integrity. Err.. I think the preemption measure you are describing does not match my code, so let's try to figure this one out. Here is what I am doing: nr_latency is still 3. I introduce nr_latency_max (8). sched_min_granularity is now sched_latency / nr_latency_max sched_std_granularity is sched_latency / nr_latency sched_std_granularity is the granularity effective when there are 3 tasks or less running. This is the exact same behavior as the current kernel. For more than 8 tasks, the behavior is the same as the current kernel (we increase the scheduling period, ergo the latency); we are using the new "sched_min_granularity" (which is now sched_latency / 8 rather than sched_latency /3). The interesting part is in the range from 4 to 8 tasks. I diminish the scheduler granularity as the number of tasks increases rather than increasing latency. This leads to more scheduler preemptions than usual, but only in the 4-8 running tasks range. We could possibly fine-tune nr_latency_max to a value that would keep an appropriate sched_min_granularity (that would not cause an insane rate of scheduler events). The major interest in the approach I propose (rather than just increasing nr_latency and decreasing sched_min_granularity) is that I don't have to change the scheduler granularity when there are only few tasks running. So the extra scheduler overhead is only taken when we are running more tasks. I hope my explanation clarifies things a bit, Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com -- 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