linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] sched: throttle cfs_rq entities which exceed their local quota

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: <20101014185002.6ecb2bf5.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:50:02 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
	Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Nikhil Rao <ncrao@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] sched: throttle cfs_rq entities which exceed
 their local quota

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:12:22 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 15:34 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > cpu.share and bandwidth control can't be used simultaneously or...
> > is this fair ? I'm not familiar with scheduler but this allows boost this tg.
> > Could you add a brief documentaion of a spec/feature. in the next post ?
> 
> Like explained, shares control the proportional distribution of time
> between groups, bandwidth puts a limit on how much time a group can
> take. It can cause a group to receive less than its fair share, but
> never more.
> 
> There is, however, a problem with all this, and that is that all this
> explicit idling of tasks can lead to a form of priority inversion.
> Regular preemptive scheduling already suffers from this, but explicitly
> idling tasks exacerbates the situation.
> 
> You basically get to add the longest induced idle time to all your lock
> hold times.
> 

What is the user-visible difference of the problem between
  1) limit share to be very small.
  2) use throttole.

If share is used, lock-hodler's priority is boosted ?

Thanks,
-Kame

--
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/