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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <54fa27ff-69a7-b2ac-6152-6915f78a57f9@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Aug 2019 15:04:42 +0800
From:   Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>
Cc:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>,
        Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        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 2019/8/6 14:56, Aubrey Li wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:24 AM Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>> I've been thinking if we should consider core wide tenent fairness?
>>
>> Let's say there are 3 tasks on 2 threads' rq of the same core, 2 tasks
>> (e.g. A1, A2) belong to tenent A and the 3rd B1 belong to another tenent
>> B. Assume A1 and B1 are queued on the same thread and A2 on the other
>> thread, when we decide priority for A1 and B1, shall we also consider
>> A2's vruntime? i.e. shall we consider A1 and A2 as a whole since they
>> belong to the same tenent? I tend to think we should make fairness per
>> core per tenent, instead of per thread(cpu) per task(sched entity). What
>> do you guys think?
>>
> 
> I also think a way to make fairness per cookie per core, is this what you
> want to propose?

Yes, that's what I meant.