linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 6/7] block: queue work on any cpu

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 23 Mar 2013 12:14:44 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:	pjt@...gle.com, paul.mckenney@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	tj@...nel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, robin.randhawa@....com,
	Steve.Bannister@....com, Liviu.Dudau@....com,
	charles.garcia-tobin@....com, Arvind.Chauhan@....com,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 6/7] block: queue work on any cpu

On 22 March 2013 20:35, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:

Hi Jens,

First of all, please have a look at:

1. https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/18/364

This is cover-letter of my mail where i have shown power savings achieved
with this patchset.

2. https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/21/172

This is the link for discussion i had with Tejun which answers some of these
questions.

> What are the performance implications of this? From that perspective,
> scheduling on a local core is the better choice. Hopefully it's already
> running on the local socket of the device, keeping it on that node would
> be preferable.

If the local cpu is busy or all cpus are idle then we don't migrate, and so
for performance shouldn't be affected with it.

> For the delayed functions, the timer is typically added on the current
> CPU.

This is the code that executes here:

	if (unlikely(cpu != WORK_CPU_UNBOUND))
		add_timer_on(timer, cpu);
	else
		add_timer(timer);

Clearly for queue_delayed_work() call we don't use local cpu but we use
the same sched_select_non_idle_cpu() routine to give us the right cpu.

> It's hard to know what the state of idleness of CPUs would be when
> the delay has expired. How are you handling this?

Correct, and we are not deciding that right now, but when the timer expires.

Thanks for your feedback.
--
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/