linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 12 Jun 2019 23:22:46 -0400
From:   Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>
To:     Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>
Cc:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.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>,
        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>,
        Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.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 v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3

On 12-Jun-2019 05:03:08 PM, Subhra Mazumdar wrote:
> 
> On 6/12/19 9:33 AM, Julien Desfossez wrote:
> >After reading more traces and trying to understand why only untagged
> >tasks are starving when there are cpu-intensive tasks running on the
> >same set of CPUs, we noticed a difference in behavior in ‘pick_task’. In
> >the case where ‘core_cookie’ is 0, we are supposed to only prefer the
> >tagged task if it’s priority is higher, but when the priorities are
> >equal we prefer it as well which causes the starving. ‘pick_task’ is
> >biased toward selecting its first parameter in case of equality which in
> >this case was the ‘class_pick’ instead of ‘max’. Reversing the order of
> >the parameter solves this issue and matches the expected behavior.
> >
> >So we can get rid of this vruntime_boost concept.
> >
> >We have tested the fix below and it seems to work well with
> >tagged/untagged tasks.
> >
> My 2 DB instance runs with this patch are better with CORESCHED_STALL_FIX
> than NO_CORESCHED_STALL_FIX in terms of performance, std deviation and
> idleness. May be enable it by default?

Yes if the fix is approved, we will just remove the option and it will
always be enabled.

Thanks,

Julien