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:	Wed, 4 Jun 2014 11:25:59 +0100
From:	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
To:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"efault@....de" <efault@....de>,
	"nicolas.pitre@...aro.org" <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"daniel.lezcano@...aro.org" <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/11] sched: get CPU's activity statistic

On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 10:35:15AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 4 June 2014 11:23, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 09:55:42AM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> >> Both running_avg and runnable_avg are affected by other tasks on the
> >> same cpus, but in different ways. They are equal if you only have one
> >> task on a cpu. If you have more, running_avg will give you the true
> >> requirement of the tasks until the cpu is fully utilized. At which point
> >> the task running_avg will drop if you add more tasks (the unweighted sum
> >> of task running_avgs remains constant).
> >>
> >> runnable_avg on the other hand, might be affected as soon as you have
> >> two task running on the same cpu if they are runnable at the same time.
> >> That isn't necessarily a bad thing for load-balancing purposes, because
> >> tasks that are runnable at the same time are likely to be run more
> >> efficiently by placing them on different cpus. You might view as at sort
> >> of built in concurrency factor, somewhat similar to what Yuyang is
> >> proposing. runnable_avg increases rapidly when the cpu is over-utilized.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >> > I'm not sure I see how 100% is possible, but yes I agree that runnable
> >> > can indeed be inflated due to this queueing effect.
> >>
> >> You should only be able to get to 75% worst case for runnable_avg for
> >> that example. The total running_avg is 50% no matter if the tasks
> >> overlaps or not.
> >
> > Yes, 75% is what I ended up with.
> 
> Can you explain how you reach 75% as it depends on the runtime and a
> runtime longer than 345ms will end to a 100% load whatever the
> idletime was previously ?

If the busy period of each task is long enough that the first one to run
runs to completetion before the other task is scheduled you get 25% and
50%. But as I said in my other reply, you can get higher task runnable
if the tasks busy period is long enough that you switch between them
before the first one completes.
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ