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]

Message-ID: <CAERHkrsMFjjBpPZS7jDhzbob4PSmiPj83OfqEeiKgaDAU3ajOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jun 2019 10:51:27 +0800
From:   Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>
To:     Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>
Cc:     Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.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 Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:22 AM Julien Desfossez
<jdesfossez@...italocean.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

sysbench --report-interval option unveiled something.

benchmark setup
-------------------------
two cgroups, cpuset.cpus = 1, 53(one core, two siblings)
sysbench cpu mode, one thread in cgroup1
sysbench memory mode, one thread in cgroup2

no core scheduling
--------------------------
cpu throughput eps: 405.8, std: 0.14%
mem bandwidth MB/s: 5785.7, std: 0.11%

cgroup1 enable core scheduling(cpu mode)
cgroup2 disable core scheduling(memory mode)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
cpu throughput eps: 8.7, std: 519.2%
mem bandwidth MB/s: 6263.2, std: 9.3%

cgroup1 disable core scheduling(cpu mode)
cgroup2 enable core scheduling(memory mode)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
cpu throughput eps: 468.0 , std: 8.7%
mem bandwidth MB/S: 311.6 , std: 169.1%

cgroup1 enable core scheduling(cpu mode)
cgroup2 enable core scheduling(memory mode)
----------------------------------------------------------------
cpu throughput eps: 76.4 , std: 168.0%
mem bandwidth MB/S: 5388.3 , std: 30.9%

The result looks still unfair, and particularly, the variance is too high,
----sysbench cpu log ----
----snip----
[ 10s ] thds: 1 eps: 296.00 lat (ms,95%): 2.03
[ 11s ] thds: 1 eps: 0.00 lat (ms,95%): 1170.65
[ 12s ] thds: 1 eps: 1.00 lat (ms,95%): 0.00
[ 13s ] thds: 1 eps: 0.00 lat (ms,95%): 0.00
[ 14s ] thds: 1 eps: 295.91 lat (ms,95%): 2.03
[ 15s ] thds: 1 eps: 1.00 lat (ms,95%): 170.48
[ 16s ] thds: 1 eps: 0.00 lat (ms,95%): 2009.23
[ 17s ] thds: 1 eps: 1.00 lat (ms,95%): 995.51
[ 18s ] thds: 1 eps: 296.00 lat (ms,95%): 2.03
[ 19s ] thds: 1 eps: 1.00 lat (ms,95%): 170.48
[ 20s ] thds: 1 eps: 0.00 lat (ms,95%): 2009.23
----snip----

Thanks,
-Aubrey