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]

Message-ID: <5372E148.7050805@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 May 2014 11:21:44 +0800
From:	Michael wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	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@...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 09:36 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> 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.

That's what we are thinking, also we assume that by introducing load
decay mechanism, it become harder for the sleepy tasks to gain enough
slice, well, that currently just imagination, more investigation is
needed ;-)

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/