linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/13] ktask: multithread CPU-intensive kernel work

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: <20181201001307.wmb6o4fuysnl7vcz@ca-dmjordan1.us.oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Nov 2018 16:13:07 -0800
From:   Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        aarcange@...hat.com, aaron.lu@...el.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, bsd@...hat.com,
        darrick.wong@...cle.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        jgg@...lanox.com, jwadams@...gle.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
        mhocko@...nel.org, mike.kravetz@...cle.com,
        Pavel.Tatashin@...rosoft.com, prasad.singamsetty@...cle.com,
        rdunlap@...radead.org, steven.sistare@...cle.com,
        tim.c.chen@...el.com, vbabka@...e.cz, peterz@...radead.org,
        dhaval.giani@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/13] ktask: multithread CPU-intensive kernel work

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:18:19AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 11:55:45AM -0500, Daniel Jordan wrote:
> > Michal, you mentioned that ktask should be sensitive to CPU utilization[1].
> > ktask threads now run at the lowest priority on the system to avoid disturbing
> > busy CPUs (more details in patches 4 and 5).  Does this address your concern?
> > The plan to address your other comments is explained below.
> 
> Have you tested what kind of impact this has on bandwidth of a system
> in addition to latency?  The thing is while this would make a better
> use of a system which has idle capacity, it does so by doing more
> total work.  It'd be really interesting to see how this affects
> bandwidth of a system too.

I guess you mean something like comparing aggregate CPU time across threads to
the base single thread time for some job or set of jobs?  Then no, I haven't
measured that, but I can for next time.