| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:40:19 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Pawel Dziekonski <dzieko@...il.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Subject: Re: CPU scheduler question/problem On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 22:34 +0100, Pawel Dziekonski wrote: > question: is there a way to better balance processes over different > cores and do it automagically? Hard, the load-balancing code is a bunch of heuristics that work 'well' for most of the things. The pipe workload you mentioned has would behave that way because pipes 'assume' a produces/consumer behaviour, and thus are more likely to place both tasks on the same cpu -- but will eventually pull them apart if they want to run concurrently. You might enable SCHED_DEBUG=y and try echo NO_SYNC_WAKEUPS > /debug/sched_features For that particular load. About your quantum chemistry application -- you say they share a workload, does that mean they synchronize a lot on locks? If so, the scheduler might, at times of serialization, think it is a produces/consumer load and move tasks together, and then later, when they run independently, move them apart again. I'm afraid you'll have to share a bit more of how your application works in order to get a more informed answer. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists