linux-kernel - Re: Can context switches be faster?

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: <1160785812.25218.99.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:30:12 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Andreas Mohr <andi@...x01.fht-esslingen.de>
Cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	John Richard Moser <nigelenki@...cast.net>,
	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Can context switches be faster?

Ar Sad, 2006-10-14 am 01:32 +0200, ysgrifennodd Andreas Mohr:
> OK, so since we've now amply worked out in this thread that TLB/cache flushing
> is a real problem for context switching management, would it be possible to
> smartly reorder processes on the runqueue (probably works best with many active
> processes with the same/similar priority on the runqueue!) to minimize
> TLB flushing needs due to less mm context differences of adjacently scheduled
> processes?

We already do. The newer x86 processors also have TLB tagging so they
can (if you find one without errata!) avoid the actual flush and instead
track the tag.

Alan
-
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/