linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2

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: <CAERHkrtOCbLQ-tFq9ujjnyaudtd_e0UaSA2GQG64JqdS6cuTKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Apr 2019 21:13:10 +0800
From:   Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>
To:     Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>
Cc:     Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>,
        Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:18 AM Vineeth Remanan Pillai
<vpillai@...italocean.com> wrote:
>
> Second iteration of the core-scheduling feature.
>
> This version fixes apparent bugs and performance issues in v1. This
> doesn't fully address the issue of core sharing between processes
> with different tags. Core sharing still happens 1% to 5% of the time
> based on the nature of workload and timing of the runnable processes.
>
> Changes in v2
> -------------
> - rebased on mainline commit: 6d906f99817951e2257d577656899da02bb33105

Thanks to post v2, based on this version, here is my benchmarks result.

Environment setup
--------------------------
Skylake server, 2 numa nodes, 104 CPUs (HT on)
cgroup1 workload, sysbench (CPU intensive non AVX workload)
cgroup2 workload, gemmbench (AVX512 workload)

Case 1: task number < CPU num
--------------------------------------------
36 sysbench threads in cgroup1
36 gemmbench threads in cgroup2

core sched off:
- sysbench 95th percentile latency(ms): avg = 4.952, stddev = 0.55342
core sched on:
- sysbench 95th percentile latency(ms): avg = 3.549, stddev = 0.04449

Due to core cookie matching, sysbench tasks won't be affect by AVX512
tasks, latency has ~28% improvement!!!

Case 2: task number > CPU number
-------------------------------------------------
72 sysbench threads in cgroup1
72 gemmbench threads in cgroup2

core sched off:
- sysbench 95th percentile latency(ms): avg = 11.914, stddev = 3.259
core sched on:
- sysbench 95th percentile latency(ms): avg = 13.289, stddev = 4.863

So not only power, now security and performance is a pair of contradictions.
Due to core cookie not matching and forced idle introduced, latency has ~12%
regression.

Any comments?

Thanks,
-Aubrey