linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/9] sched,cgroup: Add interface for latency-nice

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: <c09bf5fc-8fc6-dddd-0a18-bd7d5f2136b5@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Sep 2019 11:45:34 +0530
From:   Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        subhra mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        steven.sistare@...cle.com, dhaval.giani@...cle.com,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        viresh.kumar@...aro.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        patrick.bellasi@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/9] sched,cgroup: Add interface for latency-nice



On 9/4/19 11:02 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
> On 8/30/19 10:49 AM, subhra mazumdar wrote:
>> Add Cgroup interface for latency-nice. Each CPU Cgroup adds a new file
>> "latency-nice" which is shared by all the threads in that Cgroup.
> 
> 
> Subhra,
> 
> Thanks for posting the patchset.  Having a latency nice hint
> is useful beyond idle load balancing.  I can think of other
> application scenarios, like scheduling batch machine learning AVX 512
> processes with latency sensitive processes.  AVX512 limits the frequency
> of the CPU and it is best to avoid latency sensitive task on the
> same core with AVX512.  So latency nice hint allows the scheduler
> to have a criteria to determine the latency sensitivity of a task
> and arrange latency sensitive tasks away from AVX512 tasks.
> 


Hi Tim and Subhra,

This patchset seems to be interesting for my TurboSched patches as well
where I try to pack jitter tasks on fewer cores to get higher Turbo Frequencies.
Well, the problem I face is that we sometime end up putting multiple jitter tasks on a core
running some latency sensitive application which may see performance degradation.
So my plan was to classify such tasks to be latency sensitive thereby hinting the load
balancer to not put tasks on such cores.

TurboSched: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/7/25/296

> You configure the latency hint on a cgroup basis.
> But I think not all tasks in a cgroup necessarily have the same
> latency sensitivity.
> 
> For example, I can see that cgroup can be applied on a per user basis,
> and the user could run different tasks that have different latency sensitivity.
> We may also need a way to configure latency sensitivity on a per task basis instead on
> a per cgroup basis.
> 

AFAIU, the problem defined above intersects with my patches as well where the interface
is required to classify the jitter tasks. I have already tried few methods like
syscall and cgroup to classify such tasks and maybe something like that can be adopted
with these patchset as well.


Thanks,
Parth