linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 17/22] sched: packing small tasks in wake/exec balancing

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]

Date:	Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:32:49 +0800
From:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To:	Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>
CC:	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"arjan@...ux.intel.com" <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "pjt@...gle.com" <pjt@...gle.com>,
	"namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	"efault@....de" <efault@....de>,
	"vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 17/22] sched: packing small tasks in wake/exec balancing

On 01/15/2013 01:00 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
>>> Why multiply rq->util by nr_running?
>>> > > 
>>> > > Let's take an example where rq->util = 50, nr_running = 2, and putil =
>>> > > 10. In this case the value of putil doesn't really matter as vacancy
>>> > > would be negative anyway since FULL_UTIL - rq->util * nr_running is -1.
>>> > > However, with rq->util = 50 there should be plenty of spare cpu time to
>>> > > take another task.
>> > 
>> > for this example, the util is not full maybe due to it was just wake up,
>> > it still is possible like to run full time. So, I try to give it the
>> > large guess load.
> I don't see why rq->util should be treated different depending on the
> number of tasks causing the load. rq->util = 50 means that the cpu is
> busy about 50% of the time no matter how many tasks contibute to that
> load.
> 
> If nr_running = 1 instead in my example, you would consider the cpu
> vacant if putil = 6, but if nr_running > 1 you would not. Why should the
> two scenarios be treated differently?
> 
>>> > > 
>>> > > Also, why multiply putil by 8? rq->util must be very close to 0 for
>>> > > vacancy to be positive if putil is close to 12 (12.5%).
>> > 
>> > just want to pack small util tasks, since packing is possible to hurt
>> > performance.
> I agree that packing may affect performance. But why don't you reduce
> FULL_UTIL instead of multiplying by 8? With current expression you will
> not pack a 10% task if rq->util = 20 and nr_running = 1, but you would
> pack a 6% task even if rq->util = 50 and the resulting cpu load is much
> higher.
> 

Yes, the threshold has no strong theory or experiment support. I had
tried cyclitest which Vicent used, the case's load avg is too small to
be caught. so just use half of Vicent value as 12.5%. If you has more
reasonable value, let me know.

As to nr_running engaged as multiple mode. it's base on 2 reasons.
1, load avg/util need 345ms to accumulate as 100%. so, if a tasks is
cost full cpu time, it still has 345ms with rq->util < 1.
2, if there are more tasks, like 2 tasks running on one cpu, it's
possible to has capacity to burn 200% cpu time, while the biggest
rq->util is still 100%.

Consider to figure out precise utils is complicate and cost much. I do
this simple calculation. It is not very precise, but it is efficient and
more bias toward performance.

-- 
Thanks Alex
--
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/