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  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]
Date:   Fri, 22 Mar 2019 17:06:18 -0700
From:   Subhra Mazumdar <>
To:     Julien Desfossez <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,,,,,
        Vineeth Pillai <>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 03/16] sched: Wrap rq::lock access

On 3/21/19 2:20 PM, Julien Desfossez wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:31 PM Subhra Mazumdar <>
> wrote:
>> On 3/18/19 8:41 AM, Julien Desfossez wrote:
> On further investigation, we could see that the contention is mostly in the
> way rq locks are taken. With this patchset, we lock the whole core if
> cpu.tag is set for at least one cgroup. Due to this, __schedule() is more or
> less serialized for the core and that attributes to the performance loss
> that we are seeing. We also saw that newidle_balance() takes considerably
> long time in load_balance() due to the rq spinlock contention. Do you think
> it would help if the core-wide locking was only performed when absolutely
> needed ?
Is the core wide lock primarily responsible for the regression? I ran 
upto patch
12 which also has the core wide lock for tagged cgroups and also calls
newidle_balance() from pick_next_task(). I don't see any regression.  Of 
the core sched version of pick_next_task() may be doing more but 
comparing with
the __pick_next_task() it doesn't look too horrible.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists