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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Thu, 27 Feb 2020 09:10:33 -0500
From:   Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
To:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>
Cc:     Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...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>,
        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

Hi Aaron,

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:04:32AM +0800 Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 03:51:37PM -0500, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> > On a 2sockets/16cores/32threads VM, I grouped 8 sysbench(cpu mode)
> > > threads into one cgroup(cgA) and another 16 sysbench(cpu mode) threads
> > > into another cgroup(cgB). cgA and cgB's cpusets are set to the same
> > > socket's 8 cores/16 CPUs and cgA's cpu.shares is set to 10240 while cgB's
> > > cpu.shares is set to 2(so consider cgB as noise workload and cgA as
> > > the real workload).
> > >
> > > I had expected cgA to occupy 8 cpus(with each cpu on a different core)
> > 
> > The expected behaviour could also be that 8 processes share 4 cores and
> > 8 hw threads right? This is what we are seeing mostly
> 
> I expect the 8 cgA tasks to spread on each core, instead of occupying
> 4 cores/8 hw threads. If they stay on 4 cores/8 hw threads, than on the
> core level, these cores' load would be much higher than other cores
> which are running cgB's tasks, this doesn't look right to me.
> 

I don't think that's a valid assumption, at least since the load balancer rework.

The scheduler will be looking much more at the number of running task versus
the group weight. So in this case 2 running tasks, 2 siblings at the core level
will look fine. There will be no reason to migrate. 

> I think the end result should be: each core has two tasks queued, one
> cgA task and one cgB task(to maintain load balance on the core level).
> The two tasks are queued on different hw thread, with cgA's task runs
> most of the time on one thread and cgB's task being forced idle most
> of the time on the other thread.
> 

With the core scheduler that does not seem to be a desired outcome. I think
grouping the 8 cgA tasks on the 8 cpus of 4 cores seems right. 



Cheers,
Phil

--