linux-kernel - Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER

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, 28 Aug 2009 09:25:59 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	raz ben yehuda <raziebe@...il.com>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
	peterz@...radead.org, maximlevitsky@...il.com, efault@....de,
	wiseman@...s.biu.ac.il, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER

raz ben yehuda wrote:

> yes. latency is a crucial property. 

In the case of network packets, wouldn't you get a lower
latency by transmitting the packet from the CPU that
knows the packet should be transmitted, instead of sending
an IPI to another CPU and waiting for that CPU to do the
work?

Inter-CPU communication has always been the bottleneck
when it comes to SMP performance.  Why does adding more
inter-CPU communication make your system faster, instead
of slower like one would expect?

-- 
All rights reversed.
--
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/