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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 20:46:59 -0700 From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com> To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com> CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, <riel@...hat.com>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <morten.rasmussen@....com> Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE On 06/17/2015 05:55 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 11:06 -0700, Josef Bacik wrote: >> On 06/11/2015 10:35 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: >>> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 13:05 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>> If sd == NULL, we fall through and try to pull wakee despite nacked-by >>> tsk_cpus_allowed() or wake_affine(). >>> >> >> So maybe add a check in the if (sd_flag & SD_BALANCE_WAKE) for something >> like this >> >> if (tmp >= 0) { >> new_cpu = tmp; >> goto unlock; >> } else if (!want_affine) { >> new_cpu = prev_cpu; >> } >> >> so we can make sure we're not being pushed onto a cpu that we aren't >> allowed on? Thanks, > > The buglet is a messenger methinks. You saying the patch helped without > SD_BALANCE_WAKE being set is why I looked. The buglet would seem to say > that preferring cache is not harming your load after all. It now sounds > as though wake_wide() may be what you're squabbling with. > > Things aren't adding up all that well. Yeah I'm horribly confused. The other thing is I had to switch clusters (I know, I know, I'm changing the parameters of the test). So these new boxes are haswell boxes, but basically the same otherwise, 2 socket 12 core with HT, just newer/faster CPUs. I'll re-run everything again and give the numbers so we're all on the same page again, but as it stands now I think we have this 3.10 with wake_idle forward ported - good 4.0 stock - 20% perf drop 4.0 w/ Peter's patch - good 4.0 w/ Peter's patch + SD_BALANCE_WAKE - 5% perf drop I can do all these iterations again to verify, is there any other permutation you'd like to see? Thanks, Josef -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists