linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Gang scheduling in CFS

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: <1324332646.30454.19.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:10:46 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Gang scheduling in CFS

On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 16:51 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 14:03 +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
> > The following patches implements gang scheduling. These patches
> >     are *highly* experimental in nature and are not proposed for
> >     inclusion at this time.
> 
> Nor will they ever be, I've always strongly opposed the whole concept
> and I'm not about to change my mind. Gang scheduling is a scalability
> nightmare. 
> 
> >     Gang scheduling can be helpful in virtualization scenario. It will
> >     help in avoiding the lock-holder-preemption[1] problem and other
> >     benefits include improved lock-acquisition times. This feature
> >     will help address some limitations of KVM on Power
> 
> Use paravirt ticket locks or a pause-loop-filter like thing.
> 
> >     On Power, we have an interesting hardware restriction on guests
> >     running across SMT theads: on any single core, we can only run one
> >     mm context at any given time. 
> 
> OMFG are your hardware engineers insane?

No we can run separate mm contexts, but we can only run one -partition-
at a time. Sadly the host kernel is also a partition for the MMU so that
means that all 4 threads must be running the same guest and enter/exit
the guest at the same time.

> Anyway, I had a look at your patches and I don't see how could ever
> work. You gang-schedule cgroup entities, but there's no guarantee the
> load-balancer will have at least one task for each group on every cpu.

Cheers,
Ben.



--
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/