linux-kernel - Re: change in sched cpu_power causing regressions with SCHED

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:	Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:36:28 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Ma, Ling" <ling.ma@...el.com>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	"ego@...ibm.com" <ego@...ibm.com>,
	"svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: change in sched cpu_power causing regressions with SCHED_MC

On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 17:31 -0800, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> 
> We have one more problem that Yanmin and Ling Ma reported. On a dual
> socket quad-core platforms (for example platforms based on NHM-EP), we
> are seeing scenarios where one socket is completely busy (with all the 4
> cores running with 4 tasks) and another socket is completely idle.
> 
> This causes performance issues as those 4 tasks share the memory
> controller, last-level cache bandwidth etc. Also we won't be taking
> advantage of turbo-mode as much as we like. We will have all these
> benefits if we move two of those tasks to the other socket. Now both the
> sockets can potentially go to turbo etc and improve performance.
> 
> In short, your recent change (shown below) broke this behavior. In the
> kernel summit you mentioned you made this change with out affecting the
> behavior of SMT/MC. And my testing immediately after kernel-summit also
> didn't show the problem (perhaps my test didn't hit this specific
> change). But apparently we are having performance issues with this patch
> (Ling Ma's bisect pointed to this patch). I will look more detailed into
> this after the long weekend (to see if we can catch this scenario in
> fix_small_imbalance() etc). But wanted to give you a quick heads up.
> Thanks.

Right, so the behaviour we want should be provided by SD_PREFER_SIBLING,
it provides the capacity==1 thing the cpu_power games used to provide.

Not saying it's not broken, but that's where the we should be looking to
fix it.
--
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/