linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] sched/core: Accounting forceidle time for all tasks except idle task

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: <CABk29NuX1XYUXj8uZrSjm83n=-uk1LUbRQSMpo2s6er2pTRmDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jan 2022 15:52:02 -0800
From:   Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
To:     Cruz Zhao <CruzZhao@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        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>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] sched/core: Accounting forceidle time for all
 tasks except idle task

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 1:56 AM Cruz Zhao <CruzZhao@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
> There are two types of forced idle time: forced idle time from cookie'd
> task and forced idle time form uncookie'd task. The forced idle time from
> uncookie'd task is actually caused by the cookie'd task in runqueue
> indirectly, and it's more accurate to measure the capacity loss with the
> sum of both.
>
> Assuming cpu x and cpu y are a pair of SMT siblings, consider the
> following scenarios:
>   1.There's a cookie'd task running on cpu x, and there're 4 uncookie'd
>     tasks running on cpu y. For cpu x, there will be 80% forced idle time
>     (from uncookie'd task); for cpu y, there will be 20% forced idle time
>     (from cookie'd task).
>   2.There's a uncookie'd task running on cpu x, and there're 4 cookie'd
>     tasks running on cpu y. For cpu x, there will be 80% forced idle time
>     (from cookie'd task); for cpu y, there will be 20% forced idle time
>     (from uncookie'd task).
>
> The scenario1 can recurrent by stress-ng(scenario2 can recurrent similary):
>     (cookie'd)taskset -c x stress-ng -c 1 -l 100
>     (uncookie'd)taskset -c y stress-ng -c 4 -l 100
>
> In the above two scenarios, the total capacity loss is 1 cpu, but in
> scenario1, the cookie'd forced idle time tells us 20% cpu capacity loss, in
> scenario2, the cookie'd forced idle time tells us 80% cpu capacity loss,
> which are not accurate. It'll be more accurate to measure with cookie'd
> forced idle time and uncookie'd forced idle time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Cruz Zhao <CruzZhao@...ux.alibaba.com>
> ---

Thanks,

Reviewed-by: Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>