linux-kernel - Re: [ISSUE] sched/cgroup: Does cpu-cgroup still works fine nowadays?

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, 13 May 2014 09:36:20 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Michael wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [ISSUE] sched/cgroup: Does cpu-cgroup still works fine nowadays?

On 05/13/2014 05:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:34:43AM +0800, Michael wang wrote:
>> During our testing, we found that the cpu.shares doesn't work as
>> expected, the testing is:
>>
> 
> /me zaps all the kvm nonsense as that's non reproducable and only serves
> to annoy.
> 
> Pro-tip: never use kvm to report cpu-cgroup issues.
> 
>> So is this results expected (I really do not think so...)?
>>
>> Or that imply the cpu-cgroup got some issue to be fixed?
> 
> So what I did (WSM-EP 2x6x2):
> 
> mount none /cgroup -t cgroup -o cpu
> mkdir -p /cgroup/a
> mkdir -p /cgroup/b
> mkdir -p /cgroup/c
> 
> echo $$ > /cgroup/a/tasks ; for ((i=0; i<12; i++)) ; do A.sh & done
> echo $$ > /cgroup/b/tasks ; for ((i=0; i<12; i++)) ; do B.sh & done
> echo $$ > /cgroup/c/tasks ; for ((i=0; i<12; i++)) ; do C.sh & done
> 
> echo 2048 > /cgroup/c/cpu.shares
> 
> Where [ABC].sh are spinners:

I suspect the "are spinners" is key.

Infinite loops can run all the time, while dbench spends a lot of
its time waiting for locks. That waiting may interfere with getting
as much CPU as it wants.

-- 
All rights reversed
--
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/