linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched/fair: Improve fairness between cfs tasks

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 18 Sep 2020 13:27:45 -0400
From:   Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
To:     peterz@...radead.org
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, valentin.schneider@....com,
        Jirka Hladky <jhladky@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched/fair: Improve fairness between cfs tasks

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 12:39:28PM -0400 Phil Auld wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 01:42:02PM +0200 peterz@...radead.org wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:03:36PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > Vincent Guittot (4):
> > >   sched/fair: relax constraint on task's load during load balance
> > >   sched/fair: reduce minimal imbalance threshold
> > >   sched/fair: minimize concurrent LBs between domain level
> > >   sched/fair: reduce busy load balance interval
> > 
> > I see nothing objectionable there, a little more testing can't hurt, but
> > I'm tempted to apply them.
> > 
> > Phil, Mel, any chance you can run them through your respective setups?
> > 
> 
> Sorry for the delay. Things have been backing up...
> 
> We tested with tis series and found there was no performance change in
> our test suites. (We don't have a good way to share the actual numbers
> outside right now, but since they aren't really different it probably
> doesn't matter much here.)
> 
> The difference we did see was a slight decrease in the number of tasks
> moved around at higher loads.  That seems to be a good thing even though
> it didn't directly show time-based performance benefits (and was pretty
> minor).
> 
> So if this helps other use cases we've got no problems with it.
>

Feel free to add a

Reviewed-by: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>

Jirka did the actual testing so he can speak up with a Tested-by if he
wants to.


> Thanks,
> Phil
> 
> -- 
> 

--