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: <20190426095123.GE126896@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Apr 2019 11:51:23 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:     Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        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>,
        Fr?d?ric 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>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2


* Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> wrote:

> > Interesting.
> > 
> > Here too I'm wondering whether the scheduler could do something to 
> > improve the saturated case: which *is* an important workload, as kernel 
> > hackers tend to over-load their systems a bit when building kernel, to 
> > make sure the system is at least 100% utilized. ;-)
> > 
> 
> Every so often I try but I never managed to settle on a heuristic that 
> helped this case without breaking others. The biggest hurdle is that 
> typically things are better if migrations are low but it's hard to do 
> that in a way that does not also stack tasks on the same CPUs 
> prematurely.

So instead of using a heuristic (which are fragile and most of them are 
also annoyingly non-deterministic and increase overall noise and make 
measurements harder) I'd suggest using SCHED_BATCH just as a hardcore 
toggle to maximize for CPU-bound throughput.

It's not used very much, but the kernel build could use it by default 
(i.e. we could use a "chrt -b" call within the main Makefile), so it 
would be the perfect guinea pig and wouldn't affect anything else.

I.e. we could use SCHED_BATCH to maximize kernel build speed, with no no 
regard to latency (within SCHED_BATCH workloads). I suspect this will 
also maximize bandwidth of a lot of other real-world, highly parallel but 
interacting processing workloads.

[ I'd even be willing to rename it to SCHED_KBUILD, internally. ;-) ]

Thanks,

	Ingo