linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] sched: Limit idle_balance() when it is being used too frequently

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1374086931.1816.2.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date:	Wed, 17 Jul 2013 11:48:51 -0700
From:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, aswin@...com,
	scott.norton@...com, chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: Limit idle_balance() when it is being used too
 frequently

On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 20:01 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 01:51:51PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 07/17/2013 12:18 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > >So the way I see things is that the only way newidle balance can slow down
> > >things is if it runs when we could have ran something useful.
> > 
> > Due to contention on the runqueue locks of other CPUs,
> > newidle also has the potential to keep _others_ from
> > running something useful.
> 
> Right, although that should only happen when we do have an imbalance and want
> to go move something. Which in Jason's case is 'rare'. But yes, I suppose
> there's other scenarios where this is far more likely.
> 
> > Could we prevent that downside by measuring both the
> > time spent idle, and the time spent in idle balancing,
> > and making sure the idle balancing time never exceeds
> > more than N% of the idle time?
> 
> Sure:
> 
> idle_balance(u64 idle_duration)
> {
>   u64 cost = 0;
> 
>   for_each_domain(sd) {
>     if (cost + sd->cost > idle_duration/N)
>       break;
> 
>     ...
> 
>     sd->cost = (sd->cost + this_cost) / 2;
>     cost += this_cost;
>   }
> }
> 
> I would've initially suggested using something like N=2 since we're dealing
> with averages and half should ensure we don't run over except for the worst
> peaks. But we could easily use a bigger N.

Okay, I'll try this out. Thank you for your suggestions.

Jason.

--
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/