linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] sched: don't consider upper se in sched

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:	Tue, 02 Apr 2013 04:35:26 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc:	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] sched: don't consider upper se in sched_slice()

On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 11:25 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: 
> Hello, Preeti.
> 
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 12:36:52PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> > Hi Joonsoo,
> > 
> > On 04/01/2013 09:38 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > Hello, Preeti.
> > > 
> > 
> > >>
> > >> Ideally the children's cpu share must add upto the parent's share.
> > >>
> > > 
> > > I don't think so.
> > > 
> > > We should schedule out the parent tg if 5ms is over. As we do so, we can
> > > fairly distribute time slice to every tg within short term. If we add
> > > the children's cpu share upto the parent's, the parent tg may have
> > > large time slice, so it cannot be preempted easily. There may be a latency
> > > problem if there are many tgs.
> > 
> > In the case where the #running < sched_nr_latency, the children's
> > sched_slices add up to the parent's.
> > 
> > A rq with two tgs,each with 3 tasks.
> > 
> > Each of these tasks have a sched slice of
> > [(sysctl_sched_latency / 3) / 2] as of the present implementation.
> > 
> > The sum of the above sched_slice of all tasks of a tg will lead to the
> > sched_slice of its parent: sysctl_sched_latency / 2
> > 
> > This breaks when the nr_running on each tg > sched_nr_latency. However I
> > don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
> 
> Ah.. Now I get your point. Yes, you are right and it may be good thing.
> With that property, all tasks in the system can be scheduled at least once
> in sysctl_sched_latency. sysctl_sched_latency is system-wide configuration,
> so my patch may be wrong. With my patch, all tasks in the system cannot be
> scheduled at least once in sysctl_sched_latency. Instead, it schedule
> all tasks in cfs_rq at least once in sysctl_sched_latency if there is
> no other tgs.
> 
> I think that it is real problem that sysctl_sched_min_granularity is not
> guaranteed for each task.
> Instead of this patch, how about considering low bound?
> 
> if (slice < sysctl_sched_min_granularity)
> 	slice = sysctl_sched_min_granularity;

How many SCHED_IDLE or +nice tasks will fit in that?

-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/