linux-kernel - Re: CFS Bandwidth Control - Test results of cgroups tasks pinned vs unpinned

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: <20110615053716.GA390@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:07:16 +0530
From:	Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Cc:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: CFS Bandwidth Control - Test results of cgroups tasks pinned vs
 unpinned

* Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com> [2011-06-13 17:00:08]:

> Hi Kamalesh.
> 
> I tried on both friday and again today to reproduce your results
> without success.  Results are attached below.  The margin of error is
> the same as the previous (2-level deep case), ~4%.  One minor nit, in
> your script's input parsing you're calling shift; you don't need to do
> this with getopts and it will actually lead to arguments being
> dropped.
> 
> Are you testing on top of a clean -tip?  Do you have any custom
> load-balancer or scheduler settings?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Paul
> 
> 
> Hyper-threaded topology:
> unpinned:
> Average CPU Idle percentage 38.6333%
> Bandwidth shared with remaining non-Idle 61.3667%
> 
> pinned:
> Average CPU Idle percentage 35.2766%
> Bandwidth shared with remaining non-Idle 64.7234%
> (The mask in the "unpinned" case is 0-3,6-9,12-15,18-21 which should
> mirror your 2 socket 8x2 configuration.)
> 
> 4-way NUMA topology:
> unpinned:
> Average CPU Idle percentage 5.26667%
> Bandwidth shared with remaining non-Idle 94.73333%
> 
> pinned:
> Average CPU Idle percentage 0.242424%
> Bandwidth shared with remaining non-Idle 99.757576%
> 
Hi Paul,

I tried tip 919c9baa9 + V6 patchset on 2 socket,quadcore with HT and
the Idle time seen is ~22% to ~23%. Kernel is not tuned to any custom
load-balancer/scheduler settings.

unpinned:
Average CPU Idle percentage 23.5333%
Bandwidth shared with remaining non-Idle 76.4667%

pinned:
Average CPU Idle percentage 0%
Bandwidth shared with remaining non-Idle 100%

Thanks,

 Kamalesh
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Kamalesh Babulal
> <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > * Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com> [2011-06-08 20:25:00]:
> >
> >> Hi Kamalesh,
> >>
> >> I'm unable to reproduce the results you describe.  One possibility is
> >> load-balancer interaction -- can you describe the topology of the
> >> platform you are running this on?
> >>
> >> On both a straight NUMA topology and a hyper-threaded platform I
> >> observe a ~4% delta between the pinned and un-pinned cases.
> >>
> >> Thanks -- results below,
> >>
> >> - Paul
> >>
> >>
(snip)
--
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/