linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: wake-affine throttle

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, 10 Apr 2013 17:22:11 +0800
From:	Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: wake-affine throttle

Hi, Peter

Thanks for your reply :)

On 04/10/2013 04:51 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 11:30 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> | 15 GB   |      32 | 35918 |   | 37632 | +4.77% | 47923 | +33.42% |
>> 52241 | +45.45%
> 
> So I don't get this... is wake_affine() once every milisecond _that_
> expensive?
> 
> Seeing we get a 45%!! improvement out of once every 100ms that would
> mean we're like spending 1/3rd of our time in wake_affine()? that's
> preposterous. So what's happening?

Not all the regression was caused by overhead, adopt curr_cpu not
prev_cpu for select_idle_sibling() is a more important reason for the
regression of pgbench.

In other word, for pgbench, we waste time in wake_affine() and make the
wrong decision at most of the time, the previously patch show
wake_affine() do pull unrelated tasks together, that's good if current
cpu still cached hot data for wakee, but that's not the case of the
workload like pgbench.

The workload just don't satisfied the decision changed by wake-affine,
the more wake-affine active, the more it suffered, that's why 100ms show
better results than 1ms, but when reached some rate, the benefit and
lost of wake-affine will be balanced.

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> 
> 

--
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/