linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] sched: define TIF_ALLOW

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: <ZQluwllEnTxvyIgU@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:49:54 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>, mgorman@...e.de,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Jon Grimm <jon.grimm@....com>, Bharata B Rao <bharata@....com>,
        raghavendra.kt@....com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
        konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] sched: define TIF_ALLOW_RESCHED


* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 18 2023 at 20:21, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, at 11:49 AM, Ankur Arora wrote:
> 
> > Why do we support anything other than full preempt?  I can think of
> > two reasons, neither of which I think is very good:
> >
> > 1. Once upon a time, tracking preempt state was expensive.  But we fixed that.
> >
> > 2. Folklore suggests that there's a latency vs throughput tradeoff,
> >    and serious workloads, for some definition of serious, want
> >    throughput, so they should run without full preemption.
> 
> It's absolutely not folklore. Run to completion is has well known 
> benefits as it avoids contention and avoids the overhead of scheduling 
> for a large amount of scenarios.
> 
> We've seen that painfully in PREEMPT_RT before we came up with the 
> concept of lazy preemption for throughput oriented tasks.

Yeah, for a large majority of workloads reduction in preemption increases 
batching and improves cache locality. Most scalability-conscious enterprise 
users want longer timeslices & better cache locality, not shorter 
timeslices with spread out cache use.

There's microbenchmarks that fit mostly in cache that benefit if work is 
immediately processed by freshly woken tasks - but that's not true for most 
workloads with a substantial real-life cache footprint.

Thanks,

	Ingo