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: <1315938226.4226.11.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:23:46 +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>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: CFS Bandwidth Control - Test results of cgroups tasks pinned vs
 unpinnede

On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 23:31 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> [2011-09-13 16:19:39]:
> 
> > > Booting with "nohz=off" also helps significantly.
> > > 
> > > With nohz=on, average idle time (over 1 min) is 10.3%
> > > With nohz=off, average idle time (over 1 min) is 3.9%
> >
> > So we should put the cpufreq/idle governor into the nohz/idle path, it
> > already tries to predict the idle duration in order to pick a C state,
> > that same prediction should be used to determine if stopping the tick is
> > worth it.
> 
> Hmm ..I tried performance governor and found that it slightly increases
> idle time.
> 
>   With nohz=off && ondemand governor, idle time = 4%
>   With nohz=off && performance governor on all cpus, idle time = 6%
> 
> I can't see obvious reasons for that ..afaict bandwidth capping should
> be independent of frequency (i.e task gets capped by "used" time,
> irrespective of frequency at which it was "using" the cpu)?

That's not what I said.. what I said is that the nohz code should also
use the idle time prognosis.. disabling the tick is a costly operation,
doing it only to have to undo it costs time, and will be accounted to
idle time, hence your improvement with nohz=off.


--
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/