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: <20190915141402.GA1349@aaronlu>
Date:   Sun, 15 Sep 2019 22:14:02 +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>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.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 Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 07:12:52AM +0800, Aubrey Li wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:04 PM Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 09:19:02AM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> > > On 9/11/19 7:02 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > > I think Julien's result show that my patches did not do as well as
> > > your patches for fairness. Aubrey did some other testing with the same
> > > conclusion.  So I think keeping the forced idle time balanced is not
> > > enough for maintaining fairness.
> >
> > Well, I have done following tests:
> > 1 Julien's test script: https://paste.debian.net/plainh/834cf45c
> > 2 start two tagged will-it-scale/page_fault1, see how each performs;
> > 3 Aubrey's mysql test: https://github.com/aubreyli/coresched_bench.git
> >
> > They all show your patchset performs equally well...And consider what
> > the patch does, I think they are really doing the same thing in
> > different ways.
> 
> It looks like we are not on the same page, if you don't mind, can both of
> you rebase your patchset onto v5.3-rc8 and provide a public branch so I
> can fetch and test it at least by my benchmark?

I'm using the following branch as base which is v5.1.5 based:
https://github.com/digitalocean/linux-coresched coresched-v3-v5.1.5-test

And I have pushed Tim's branch to:
https://github.com/aaronlu/linux coresched-v3-v5.1.5-test-tim

Mine:
https://github.com/aaronlu/linux coresched-v3-v5.1.5-test-core_vruntime

The two branches both have two patches I have sent previouslly:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190810141556.GA73644@aaronlu/
Although it has some potential performance loss as pointed out by
Vineeth, I haven't got time to rework it yet.