linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/core: Cookied forceidle accounting per cpu

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: <b7b06597-b3f1-677d-863b-e6cbf6664389@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Jan 2022 20:09:47 +0800
From:   cruzzhao <cruzzhao@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/core: Cookied forceidle accounting per cpu



在 2022/1/6 上午4:47, Josh Don 写道:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 3:33 AM cruzzhao <cruzzhao@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:

> 
> I don't see how this is very helpful for steal_cookie_task(), since it
> isn't a targeted metric for that specific case. If you were interested
> in that specifically, I'd think you'd want to look at more direct
> metrics, such as task migration counts, or adding some
> accounting/histogram for the time between steal and load balance away.
> 

I've already read the patch "sched: CGroup tagging interface for core
scheduling", but it hasn't been merged into linux-next. IMO it's better
to do this at the cgroup level after the cgroup tagging interface is
introduced.

Best,
Cruz Zhao

> 
> That motivation makes more sense to me. Have you considered
> accumulating this at the cgroup level (ie. attributing it as another
> type of usage)?