linux-kernel - Re: + sched-use-tasklet-to-call-balancing.patch added to -mm tree

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.4.64.0611071118010.4614@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Tue, 7 Nov 2006 11:22:49 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, akpm@...l.org,
	mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + sched-use-tasklet-to-call-balancing.patch added to -mm tree

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:

> tasklet_schedule doesn't schedule if there is already one scheduled.

Correct. The effect of this is to only allow load balancing on one cpu at a 
time. Subsequent attempts to schedule load balancing on other cpus are 
ignored until the cpu that is load balancing has finished. Then the 
others (hopefully) get a turn.

A pretty interesting unintended effect. It certainly solves the concurrent 
load balancing scalability issues and would avoid the need to stagger 
load balancing. Wonder how fair it would be?

-
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/