| 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: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:31:47 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, 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 * Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote: > Tasklets are scheduled on the same cpu that triggered the tasklet. > They are just moved to other processors if the processor goes down. So > that aspect is fine. We just need a tasklet struct per cpu. > > User a per cpu tasklet to schedule rebalancing > > Turns out that tasklets have a flag that only allows one instance to > run on all processors. So we need a tasklet structure for each > processor. Per-CPU tasklets are equivalent to softirqs, with extra complexity and overhead ontop of it :-) so please just introduce a rebalance softirq and attach the scheduling rebalance tick to it. But i'd suggest to re-test on the 4096-CPU box, maybe what 'fixed' your workload was the global serialization of the tasklet. With a per-CPU softirq approach we are i think back to the same situation that broke your system before. Ingo - 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