linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH v5 00/14] sched: packing tasks

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:	Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:36:31 +0100
From:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"alex.shi@...el.com" <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"len.brown@...el.com" <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...sung.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v5 00/14] sched: packing tasks

On 11 November 2013 17:38, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:33:45AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> My understanding from the recent discussions is that the scheduler
>> should decide directly on the C-state (or rather the deepest C-state
>> possible since we don't want to duplicate the backend logic for
>> synchronising CPUs going up or down). This means that the scheduler
>> needs to know about C-state target residency, wake-up latency (I think
>> we can leave coupled C-states to the backend, there is some complex
>> synchronisation which I wouldn't duplicate).
>>
>> Alternatively (my preferred approach), we get the scheduler to predict
>> and pass the expected residency and latency requirements down to a
>> power driver and read back the actual C-states for making task
>> placement decisions. Some of the menu governor prediction logic could
>> be turned into a library and used by the scheduler. Basically what
>> this tries to achieve is better scheduler awareness of the current
>> C-states decided by a cpuidle/power driver based on the scheduler
>> constraints.
>
> Ah yes.. so I _think_ the scheduler wants to eventually know about idle
> topology constraints. But we can get there in a gradual fashion I hope.
>
> Like the package C states on x86 -- for those to be effective the
> scheduler needs to pack tasks and keep entire packages idle for as long
> as possible.

That's the purpose of patches 12, 13 and 14. To get the current wakeup
latency of a core and use it when selecting a core

>
>
--
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/