linux-kernel - Re: unfair scheduling with tbb application observed, could it be a kernel issue?

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: <1344263139.6853.10.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date:	Mon, 06 Aug 2012 16:25:39 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: unfair scheduling with tbb application observed, could it be a
 kernel issue?

On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 16:04 +0200, Pedro Larroy wrote: 
> Hi
> 
> I think we are observing unfair scheduling of processes that use intel
> TBB thread scheduler, as we have several processes with nice of 19 and
> ioniced idle, and somehow the process with nice 0 should be getting
> more than 1000% cpu
.. 
> Tasks: 559 total,  37 running, 522 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
> Cpu(s): 67.8%us, 16.0%sy, 13.0%ni,  1.7%id,  0.6%wa,  0.0%hi,  1.0%si,  0.0%st
> Mem:  98998032k total, 97444688k used,  1553344k free,    53772k buffers
> Swap:  4198316k total,   704860k used,  3493456k free, 73270776k cached
> 
>   PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
> 14373 disco     39  19 8734m 6.9g  12m R  107  7.3  36:09.72 mmcc
> 15293 disco     39  19 3174m 1.4g  12m R  101  1.5  19:33.79 mmcc
> 20341 disco     39  19 2735m 1.1g  12m R  101  1.1   8:40.38 mmcc
> 18241 disco     39  19 3040m 1.3g  11m R  100  1.4  14:27.91 mmcc
> 15204 disco     39  19 5418m 3.7g  12m R   99  3.9  20:53.89 mmcc
> 24901 larroy    20   0  327m 296m 4276 R   88  0.3   0:04.14 cc1plus
> 24942 larroy    20   0  193m 159m 4008 R   87  0.2   0:01.47 cc1plus
> 24862 larroy    20   0  417m 388m 7992 R   84  0.4   0:07.02 cc1plus
> 24959 larroy    20   0  184m 153m 4008 R   80  0.2   0:01.32 cc1plus
> 24935 larroy    20   0  254m 222m 4024 R   77  0.2   0:02.44 cc1plus
> 24919 larroy    20   0  336m 301m 4036 R   76  0.3   0:03.61 cc1plus
> 24972 larroy    20   0 43160  15m 2332 R   76  0.0   0:00.95 cc1plus
> 24918 larroy    20   0  287m 255m 4024 R   70  0.3   0:02.99 cc1plus
> 24962 larroy    20   0 44872  17m 2332 R   69  0.0   0:01.23 cc1plus
> 24976 larroy    20   0 41212  14m 2332 R   66  0.0   0:00.67 cc1plus
> 24501 larroy    20   0  687m 657m 8044 R   64  0.7   0:22.97 cc1plus
> 24933 larroy    20   0  211m 177m 4008 R   62  0.2   0:01.79 cc1plus
> 24899 larroy    20   0  327m 296m 4276 R   57  0.3   0:04.25 cc1plus

Are tasks running in per user cgroups or such?  If so, you'd need to
adjust group shares.

-Mike

--
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/