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: <1315931775.5977.29.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:36:15 +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 21:51 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > I can't read it seems.. I thought you were talking about increasing the
> > period,
> 
> Mm ..I brought up the increased lock contention with reference to this
> experimental result that I posted earlier:
> 
>   > Tuning min_interval and max_interval of various sched_domains to 1
>   > and also setting sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice_us to 500 does cut down idle
>   > time further to 2.7%

Yeah, that's the not being able to read part..

> Value of sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice_us was reduced from default of 5000us
> to 500us, which (along with reduction of min/max interval) helped cut down
> idle time further (3.9% -> 2.7%). I was commenting that this may not necessarily
> be optimal (as for example low 'sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice_us' could result
> in all cpus contending for cfs_b->lock very frequently). 

Right.. so this seems to suggest you're migrating a lot.

Also what workload are we talking about? the insane one with 5 groups of
weight 1024?

Ramping up the frequency of the load-balancer and giving out smaller
slices is really anti-scalability.. I bet a lot of that 'reclaimed' idle
time is spend in system time. 
--
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/