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

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: <1315922848.5977.11.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:07:28 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: CFS Bandwidth Control - Test results of cgroups tasks pinned vs
 unpinnede

On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 16:58 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> [2011-09-13 11:39:48]:
> 
> > On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 10:33 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > 
> > > This is perhaps not optimal (as it may lead to more lock contentions), but 
> > > something to note for those who care for both capping and utilization in
> > > equal measure!
> > 
> > You meant lock inversion, which leads to more idle time :-)
> 
> I think 'cfs_b->lock' contention would go up significantly when reducing
> sysctl_sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice, while for something like 'balancing' lock 
> (taken with SD_SERIALIZE set and more frequently when tuning down
> max_interval?), yes it may increase idle time! Did you have any other
> lock in mind when speaking of inversion?

I can't read it seems.. I thought you were talking about increasing the
period, which increases the time you force a task to sleep that's
holding locks etc..
--
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/