linux-kernel - Re: Load balancing behavior for sched autogroup

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:19:21 -0700
From:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	Changlong Xie <changlongx.xie@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Load balancing behavior for sched autogroup

On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 16:35 -0700, Paul Turner wrote:
> I'm surprised that patch would have much effect in either direction;
> it changes the amortization of accounting, but not the actual numbers
> -- especially for a persistent load.  We'll take a look.
> 

Hi Paul,

Wonder if you have a chance to take a look at the load imbalance with
sched autogroup?

Thanks.

Tim

--
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/