linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4

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]

Date:   Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:34:46 +0800
From:   Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>
To:     Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>
Cc:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.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>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>,
        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 v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 01:32:35PM +0800, Aubrey Li wrote:
> Aaron - did you test this before? In other words, if you reset repo to your
> last commit:

I did this test only recently when I started to think if I can use
coresched to boost main workload's performance in a colocated
environment.

> 
> - 5bd3c80 sched/fair : Wake up forced idle siblings if needed
> 
> Does the problem remain? Just want to check if this is a regression
>  introduced by the subsequent patchset.

The problem isn't there with commit 5bd3c80 as the head, so yes, it
looks like indeed a regression introduced by subsequent patchset.

P.S. I will need to take a closer look if each cgA's task is running
on a different core later but the cpu usage of cgA is back to 800% with
commit 5bd3c80.