linux-kernel - Re: [rfc patch] sched/fair: Use instantaneous load for fork/exec balancing

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: <1466006609.4219.40.camel@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2016 18:03:29 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To:	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc patch] sched/fair: Use instantaneous load for fork/exec
 balancing

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 16:32 +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:

> > In general, the fuzz helps us to not be so spastic.  I'm not sure that
> > we really really need to care all that much, because I strongly suspect
> > that it's only gonna make any difference at all in corner cases, but
> > there are real world cases that matter.  I know for fact that schbench
> > (facebook) which is at least based on a real world load fails early due
> > to us stacking tasks due to that fuzzy view of reality.  In that case,
> > it's because the fuzz consists of a high amplitude aging sawtooth..
> 
> ... only for fork/exec?

No.  Identical workers had longish work/sleep cycle, aging resulted in
weights that ranged from roughly 300-700(ish), depending on when you
peeked at them.

	-Mike