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:	Mon, 1 Sep 2014 14:55:05 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <>
To:	Jason Low <>
Cc:	Tim Chen <>,
	Paul Turner <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
	Ben Segall <>,
	LKML <>
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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists