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  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:	Thu, 10 Jul 2014 12:08:59 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	bsegall@...gle.com
Cc:	Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
	arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com, len.brown@...el.com,
	alan.cox@...el.com, mark.gross@...el.com, pjt@...gle.com,
	fengguang.wu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: Rewrite per entity runnable load average
 tracking

On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 12:07:08PM -0700, bsegall@...gle.com wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 09:07:53AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> >> That is chalenging... Can someone (Peter) grant us a lock of the remote rq? :)
> >
> > Nope :-).. we got rid of that lock for a good reason.
> >
> > Also, this is one area where I feel performance really trumps
> > correctness, we can fudge the blocked load a little. So the
> > sched_clock_cpu() difference is a strict upper bound on the
> > rq_clock_task() difference (and under 'normal' circumstances shouldn't
> > be much off).
> 
> Well, unless IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING or such is on, in which case you lose.
> Or am I misunderstanding the suggestion?

If its on its still an upper bound, and typically the difference is not
too large I think.

Since clock_task is the regular clock minus some local amount, the
difference between two regular clock reads is always a strict upper
bound on clock_task differences.

> Actually the simplest thing
> would probably be to grab last_update_time (which on 32-bit could be
> done with the _copy hack) and use that. Then I think the accuracy is
> only worse than current in that you can lose runnable load as well as
> blocked load, and that it isn't as easily corrected - currently if the
> blocked tasks wake up they'll add the correct numbers to
> runnable_load_avg, even if blocked_load_avg is screwed up and hit zero.
> This code would have to wait until it stabilized again.

The problem with that is that last_update_time is measured in
clock_task, and you cannot transfer these values between CPUs.
clock_task can drift unbounded between CPUs.

--
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