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:   Fri, 5 May 2023 20:02:36 +0200
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To:     Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>,
        Kajetan Puchalski <kajetan.puchalski@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@...cinc.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched: Consider CPU contention in frequency &
 load-balance busiest CPU selection

Hi Chenyu,

On 05/05/2023 09:10, Chen Yu wrote:
> On 2023-04-06 at 17:50:30 +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> Use new cpu_boosted_util_cfs() instead of cpu_util_cfs().
>>
>> The former returns max(util_avg, runnable_avg) capped by max CPU
>> capacity. CPU contention is thereby considered through runnable_avg.
>>
>> The change in load-balance only affects migration type `migrate_util`.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
>>
> Tested on Intel Sapphire Rapids which has 2x56C/112T = 224 CPUs.
> The test tries to check if this is any impact on find_busiest_queue()
> so it was tested with cpufreq governor performance.
> The baseline is the 6.3 sched/core branch on top of
> Commit 67fff302fc445a ("sched/fair: Introduce SIS_CURRENT to wake up"),
> and compared to the code with current patch applied.
> 
> In summary no obvious difference and some small improvements on tbench
> were observed so far:

many thanks for the test results!

Could you share the parameter lists you use for the individual tests?
This would make it easier to understand the results and rerun the tests
on similar machines.

[...]

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ