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.4.64.0611071258280.5516@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:59:05 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 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.

What broke the system was the disabling of interrupts over long time 
periods during load balancing.

-
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/