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]

Date:	Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:51:10 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	"Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@...el.com>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"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 Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:

> So designate only one CPU within a domain to do load balance between groups
> for that specific sched domain should in theory fix the 2nd problem you
> identified.  Did you get a chance to look at the patch Suresh posted?

Yes, I am still thinking about how this would work. This would mean that 
the first cpu on a system would move busy processes to itself from all 
1023 other processes? That does not sound appealing.

Processes in the allnodes domain would move to processor #0. The next 
lower layer are the nodes groups. Not all of the groups at that layer 
contain processor #0. So we would never move processes into those sched 
domains?

-
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/