linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix longstanding load balancing bug in the scheduler.

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609070828460.16285@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Thu, 7 Sep 2006 08:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc:	akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix longstanding load balancing bug in the scheduler.

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:

> So what I worry about with this approach is that it can really blow
> out the latency of a balancing operation. Say you have N-1 CPUs with
> lots of stuff locked on their runqueues.
> 
> The solution I envisage is to do a "rotor" approach. For example
> the last attempted CPU could be stored in the starving CPU's sd...
> and it will subsequently try another one.
> 
> I've been hot and cold on such an implementation for a while: on one
> hand it is a real problem we have; OTOH I was hoping that the domain
> balancing might be better generalised. But I increasingly don't
> think we should let perfect stand in the way of good... ;)
> 
> Would you be interested in testing a patch?

Sure but I think we should move fast on this one. This has now been known 
for around a year or so.

-
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/