linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched: Reduce contention in update_cfs_rq_blocked

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: <20140901125505.GK27892@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 1 Sep 2014 14:55:05 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: Reduce contention in update_cfs_rq_blocked_load

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 12:46:36PM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 16:32 -0700, Tim Chen wrote:

> > If there are multiple non-forced updates, option 1's error seems to
> > accumulate and non-bounded as we do not actually update?  
> > Is this a concern?
> 
> It should be fine. Once the delta is large enough, we will end up doing
> the update anyway.

Well, the thing is you can have nr_cpus * 12.5% of outstanding delta;
that might be a lot, esp on the large machines.

Now there's two problems with all this; the first is the relative
threshold, typically such per-cpu things have a fixed update threshold,
this makes it much easier to qualify the actual error.

Secondly the indeed the nr_cpus in the error bound. Some things; like
the proportion code scale the threshold by log2(nr_cpus) in an attempt
to do something sensible there.

But yes, unbounded errors here are a problem, sure relaxing the updates
makes things go fast, they also make things go skew.
--
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/