linux-kernel - Re: [RFCv5 PATCH 25/46] sched: Add over-utilization/tipping point indicator

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: <20150813173533.GZ19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:35:33 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Cc:	mingo@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
	Dietmar Eggemann <Dietmar.Eggemann@....com>,
	yuyang.du@...el.com, mturquette@...libre.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
	Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>, sgurrappadi@...dia.com,
	pang.xunlei@....com.cn, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFCv5 PATCH 25/46] sched: Add over-utilization/tipping point
 indicator

On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 07:24:08PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> Energy-aware scheduling is only meant to be active while the system is
> _not_ over-utilized. That is, there are spare cycles available to shift
> tasks around based on their actual utilization to get a more
> energy-efficient task distribution without depriving any tasks. When
> above the tipping point task placement is done the traditional way,
> spreading the tasks across as many cpus as possible based on priority
> scaled load to preserve smp_nice.
> 
> The over-utilization condition is conservatively chosen to indicate
> over-utilization as soon as one cpu is fully utilized at it's highest
> frequency. We don't consider groups as lumping usage and capacity
> together for a group of cpus may hide the fact that one or more cpus in
> the group are over-utilized while group-siblings are partially idle. The
> tasks could be served better if moved to another group with completely
> idle cpus. This is particularly problematic if some cpus have a
> significantly reduced capacity due to RT/IRQ pressure or if the system
> has cpus of different capacity (e.g. ARM big.LITTLE).

I might be tired, but I'm having a very hard time deciphering this
second paragraph.
--
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/