linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 8/8] Do not reclaim the whole CPU bandwidth

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: <20160126135219.338e8ccb@utopia>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:52:19 +0100
From:	luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 8/8] Do not reclaim the whole CPU bandwidth

Hi Peter,

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:50:04 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
[...]
> > >>NOTE: the fraction of CPU time that cannot be reclaimed is
> > >>currently hardcoded as (1 << 20) / 10 -> 90%, but it must be made
> > >>configurable!
> > >
> > >So the alternative is an explicit SCHED_OTHER server which is
> > >configurable.
> > Yes, I have thought about something similar (actually, this is the
> > strategy I implemented in my first CBS/GRUB scheduler. With the
> > "old" 2.4 scheduler, this was easier :).
> > But I think the solution I implemented in this patch is much
> > simpler (it just requires a very simple modification to
> > grub_reclaim()) and is more elegant from the theoretical point of
> > view.
> 
> It is certainly simpler, agreed.
> 
> The trouble is with interfaces. Once we expose them we're stuck with
> them. And from that POV I think an explicit SCHED_OTHER server (or a
> minimum budget for a slack time scheme) makes more sense.
I am trying to work on this.
Which kind of interface is better for this? Would adding something like
/proc/sys/kernel/sched_other_period_us
/proc/sys/kernel/sched_other_runtime_us
be ok?

If this is ok, I'll add these two procfs files, and store
(sched_other_runtime / sched_other_period) << 20 in the runqueue field
which represents the unreclaimable utilization (implementing
hierarchical SCHED_DEADLINE/CFS scheduling right now is too complex for
this patchset... But if the exported interface is ok, it can be
implemented later).

Is this approach acceptable? Or am I misunderstanding your comment?



			Thanks,
				Luca