| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 18:44:46 +0330 From: Afshin Jamshidi <jamshidi.afshin@...il.com> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: [Question]: Tail latency problem in scheduler According to https://research.google.com/pubs/pub40801.html article, tail delay is problematic in enterprise service providers. According to https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2670988 article, FIFO scheduling works best and LIFO is worst for tail latency. As we test Linux scheduler called CFS, behaves mostly LIFO. Small changes to CFS makes it FIFO style and tail delay reduces to 50%. I want to argue about CFS strategy. It seems no body cares about tail latency at kernel level. How enterprise service providers overcome tail latency problem? Is it possible to at least have a flag that changes scheduler strategy for I/O intensive multi threaded applications?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists