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: <4F04BD11.8090302@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:56:49 -0500
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC:	Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, peterz@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Gang scheduling in CFS

On 01/04/2012 12:16 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/04/2012 06:47 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>> So it looks like the default is optimal, at least wrt the cases you
>>> tested and your test workload.
>>
>>
>> It depends on the workload.
>>
>> I believe ebizzy synchronously bounces messages around between
>> userland threads, and may benefit from lower latency preemption
>> and re-scheduling.
>>
>> Workloads like AMQP do asynchronous messaging, and are likely
>> to benefit from having a lower number of switches.
>>
>> I do not know which kind of workload is more prevalent.
>>
>> Another worry with gang scheduling is scalability.  One of
>> the reasons Linux scales well to larger systems is that a
>> lot of things are done CPU local, without communicating
>> things with other CPUs.  Making the scheduling algorithm
>> system-global has the potential to add in a lot of overhead.
>>
>> Likewise, removing the ability to migrate workloads to idle
>> CPUs is likely to hurt a lot of real world workloads.
>>
>> Benchmarks don't care, because they run full-out. However,
>> users do not run benchmarks nearly as much as they run
>> actual workloads...
>>
>
> I think we can solve it at the guest level.  The paravirt ticketlock
> stuff introduces wait/wake calls (actually wait is just a HLT
> instruction); we could spin for a while, then HLT until the other side
> wakes us.  We should do this for all sites that busy wait.

Agreed, that would probably be the best (and nicest) solution.

-- 
All rights reversed
--
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/