linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] sched: CPU topology try

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: <52CD0D12.6020108@linaro.org>
Date:	Wed, 08 Jan 2014 16:32:18 +0800
From:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
CC:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <Dietmar.Eggemann@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"pjt@...gle.com" <pjt@...gle.com>,
	"cmetcalf@...era.com" <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"len.brown@...el.com" <len.brown@...el.com>,
	"arjan@...ux.intel.com" <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	"amit.kucheria@...aro.org" <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
	"james.hogan@...tec.com" <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
	"schwidefsky@...ibm.com" <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	"heiko.carstens@...ibm.com" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: CPU topology try

On 01/08/2014 04:49 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 03:41:54PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
>> I think that could work if we sort of the priority scaling issue that I
>> mentioned before.
> 
> We talked a bit about this on IRC a month or so ago, right? My memories
> from that are that your main complaint is that we don't detect the
> overload scenario right.
> 
> That is; the point at which we should start caring about SMP-nice is
> when all our CPUs are fully occupied, because up to that point we're
> under utilized and work preservation mandates we utilize idle time.
> 
> Currently we detect overload by sg.nr_running >= sg.capacity, which can
> be very misleading because while a cpu might have a task running 'now'
> it might be 99% idle.
> 
> At which point I argued we should change the capacity thing anyhow. Ever
> since the runnable_avg patch set I've been arguing to change that into
> an actual utilization test.
> 
> So I think that if we measure overload by something like >95% utilization
> on the entire group the load scaling again makes perfect sense.

In my old power aware scheduling patchset, I had tried the 95 to 99. But
all those values will lead imbalance when we test while(1) like cases.
like in a 24LCPUs groups, 24*5% > 1. So, finally use 100% as overload
indicator. And in testing 100% works well to find overload since few
system service involved. :)
> 
> Given the 3 task {A,B,C} workload where A and B are niced, to land on a
> symmetric dual CPU system like: {A,B}+{C}, assuming they're all while(1)
> loops :-).
> 
> The harder case is where all 3 tasks are of equal weight; in which case
> fairness would mandate we (slowly) rotate the tasks such that they all
> get 2/3 time -- we also horribly fail at this :-)
> 


-- 
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/