linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/30] PREEMPT_AUTO: support lazy rescheduling

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: <cd56eb4e-520e-4ab2-a041-0a580cb42e1e@amd.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 08:45:06 +0530
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@....com>
To: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
 torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, paulmck@...nel.org,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de,
 dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
 juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org, willy@...radead.org,
 mgorman@...e.de, jpoimboe@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, jgross@...e.com,
 andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, bristot@...nel.org,
 mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
 glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de, anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com,
 mattst88@...il.com, krypton@...ich-teichert.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
 David.Laight@...LAB.COM, richard@....at, mjguzik@...il.com,
 jon.grimm@....com, bharata@....com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
 konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/30] PREEMPT_AUTO: support lazy rescheduling

On 2/23/2024 11:58 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 8:44 AM, Ankur Arora wrote:
>>
>> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 21 2024 at 22:57, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2024 10:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 21 2024 at 17:53, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>>>>> Configuration tested.
>>>>>> a) Base kernel (6.7),
>>>>>
>>>>> Which scheduling model is the baseline using?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> baseline is also PREEMPT_DYNAMIC with voluntary preemption
>>>>
>>>>>> b) patched with PREEMPT_AUTO voluntary preemption.
>>>>>> c) patched with PREEMPT_DYNAMIC voluntary preemption.
>>>
>>> Which RCU variant do you have enabled with a, b, c ?
>>>
>>> I.e. PREEMPT_RCU=?
>>
>> Raghu please confirm this, but if the defaults were chosen
>> then we should have:
>>
>>>> baseline is also PREEMPT_DYNAMIC with voluntary preemption
>> PREEMPT_RCU=y
>>
>>>>>> b) patched with PREEMPT_AUTO voluntary preemption.
>>
>> If this was built with PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY then, PREEMPT_RCU=n.
>> If with CONFIG_PREEMPT, PREEMPT_RCU=y.
>>
>> Might be worth rerunning the tests with the other combination
>> as well (still with voluntary preemption).
>>
>>>>>> c) patched with PREEMPT_DYNAMIC voluntary preemption.
>> PREEMPT_RCU=y
> 
> Hello Thomas, Ankur,
> Yes, Ankur's understanding is right, defaults were chosen all the time so
> for
> a) base 6.7.0+ + PREEMPT_DYNAMIC with voluntary preemption PREEMPT_RCU=y
> b) patched + PREEMPT_AUTO voluntary preemption. PREEMPT_RCU = n
> c) patched + PREEMPT_DYNAMIC with voluntary preemption PREEMPT_RCU=y

> I will check with other combination (CONFIG_PREEMPT/PREEMPT_RCU) for (b)
> and comeback if I see anything interesting.
> 

I see that

d) patched + PREEMPT_AUTO=y voluntary preemption CONFIG_PREEMPT, 
PREEMPT_RCU = y

All the results at 80% confidence
		case (d)
HashJoin         0%
Graph500         0%
XSBench          +1.2%
NAS-ft           +2.1%

In general averages are better for all the benchmarks but at 99%
confidence there seem to be no difference.

Overall looks on par or better for case (d)

Thanks and Regards
- Raghu