linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] psi: pressure stall information for CPU, memory, and IO

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: <cb81b9f2-a280-d8a9-c720-247fb9f5fa90@wdc.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 May 2018 10:35:37 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@....com>
To:     Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Oliver Yang <yangoliver@...com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        xxx xxx <x.qendo@...il.com>,
        Taras Kondratiuk <takondra@...co.com>,
        Daniel Walker <danielwa@...co.com>,
        Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@...eaurora.org>,
        Ruslan Ruslichenko <rruslich@...co.com>, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] psi: pressure stall information for CPU, memory, and
 IO

On 05/14/18 08:39, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2018, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> What to make of this number? If CPU utilization is at 100% and CPU
>> pressure is 0, it means the system is perfectly utilized, with one
>> runnable thread per CPU and nobody waiting. At two or more runnable
>> tasks per CPU, the system is 100% overcommitted and the pressure
>> average will indicate as much. From a utilization perspective this is
>> a great state of course: no CPU cycles are being wasted, even when 50%
>> of the threads were to go idle (and most workloads do vary). From the
>> perspective of the individual job it's not great, however, and they
>> might do better with more resources. Depending on what your priority
>> is, an elevated "some" number may or may not require action.
> 
> This looks awfully similar to loadavg. Problem is that loadavg gets
> screwed up by tasks blocked waiting for I/O. Isnt there some way to fix
> loadavg instead?

The following article explains why it probably made sense in 1993 to 
include TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE in loadavg and also why this no longer 
makes sense today:

http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2017-08-08/linux-load-averages.html

Bart.