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.4.64.0609081316580.24016@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
cc:	akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, npiggin@...e.de,
	mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix longstanding load balancing bug in the scheduler.

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 11:40:51AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > The balancing operation is not that frequent and having to treat a special 
> > case in the callers would make code more complicated and likely offset the
> > gains in this function.
> 
> This solution as such is not accurate and clean :) and my suggestion is
> not making it any more ugly.
> 
> With increase in NR_CPUS, cost of cpumask operations will increase and 
> we shouldn't penalize the other logical threads or cores sharing the caches by
> bringing in unnecessary cache lines.

One cacheline sized 128bytes will support all 1024 cpus that IA64 allows. 
cacheline align the cpumask?

-
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/