| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <34791398438136@webcorp2g.yandex-team.ru> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 19:02:16 +0400 From: Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "tkhai@...dex.ru" <tkhai@...dex.ru> Subject: Re: Real-time scheduling policies and hyper-threading 25.04.2014, 17:16, "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 03:04:49PM +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote: > >> 24.04.2014, 22:59, "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>: >>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:16:12PM +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote: >>>> Are there any known solutions of this problem except disabling >>>> hyper-threading and frequency scaling at all? >>> This is what we generally tell people to do; disable HT in the BIOS, >>> offline the siblings or similar approaches. >> It's a good, but expensive approach, if you have many machines. > > Expensive how? If you require the latency, there's really no option. Hm. What I really want (and try to implement), is "work as if ht is disabled if there are free physical cores, start using ht siblings otherwise". > That said, if only a small part of your workload is RT then you don't > need to disable all SMT siblings, you can only disable the few that are > in your RT partition. Ok, I understand, that I have something different than what is usual called RT. I have requests from a user and I want to handle them without any significant delays, while possible. For instance, if a request takes 100ms, I don't want to get 165ms just because the sibling ht thread was loaded. In the same time, it's important to have good resource utilization, what can be less important in real RT tasks. Of course, there is always a trade-off between latency and performance utilization, but the common practice here is to keep cpu load between 40% and 70%. So, there is fast always a free CPU thread, and a good chance that there is a free core. In this case, both latency and average performance depends on how effectively all physical cores are utilized. Below is the comparison of average response times (in microseconds) under CFS and RT scheduler with my patches depending on the number of simultaneous requests. It's a 32-thread processor with 16 physical cores. nr_req CFS RT* diff 1 9664 9237 +4.41% 2 9179 9107 +0.79% 3 9179 9310 -1.43% 4 9325 9245 +0.86% 5 9562 9387 +1.83% 6 9523 9478 +0.47% 7 10105 9727 +3.74% 8 9900 9781 +1.21% 9 10077 9871 +2.04% 10 10270 9963 +2.99% 11 10604 10231 +3.52% 12 10760 10299 +4.29% 13 11022 10316 +6.40% 14 11595 10310 +11.08% 15 11489 10200 +11.22% 16 12059 10404 +13.72% 17 12056 10691 +11.32% 18 12208 11027 +9.67% 19 12412 11337 +8.66% 20 12634 11663 +7.69% 21 12843 12165 +5.28% 22 13181 12273 +6.89% 23 13214 12560 +4.95% 24 13465 12822 +4.78% 25 13469 13106 +2.70% 26 13725 13329 +2.88% 27 13943 13581 +2.60% 28 14007 13845 +1.16% 29 14242 14040 +1.41% 30 14386 14265 +0.84% 31 14909 14478 +2.90% 32 14772 14769 +0.02% Probably, it's possible to tune CFS for this case, but I have no idea how. In my opinion, such load pattern is not very rare. For instance, front-end web-servers can have similar load. Thanks, Roman -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists