linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: cgroup SCHED

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:   Sat, 26 Jun 2021 06:06:32 -0400
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Oleg Rombakh <olegrom@...gle.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Steve Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: cgroup SCHED_IDLE support

Hello, Peter.

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 10:08:36AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> It's a direct concequence of the hierarchical requirement. The approach
> is the only valid one. The other relative controllers that don't do
> this, are simply broken.
> 
> Absolute controllers have it easier, they can be trivially flattened.

That's too strong a claim. e.g. iocost controller, while in a different
domain, is a weight controller which takes different trade-offs to achieve
hierarchical weight based distribution at negligible nesting overhead. There
usually are more than one way to skin a cat.

> > There are several practical challenges with the current implementation
> > caused by the full nesting - e.g. nesting levels are expensive for context
> > switch heavy applicaitons often going over >1% per level,
> 
> Yeah, and there's numerical problems you run into as well due to
> limitied precision.

Another issue is per-queue level heuristics like boosting after idle
nesting not in quite optimal ways.

> Just don't do deep hierarchies.
>
> AFAICT it's a simple matter of conflicting requirements, on the one hand
> the hierarchical thing is required, on the other hand people seem to
> think all this crap is 'free' and create super deep hierarchies and then
> complain shit don't work right.

The problem is that the overhead is significant enough even at pretty
shallow levels. Even at just two/three levels, the cost is already
significant enough for some large-scale applications.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun