linux-kernel - Re: linux scheduler and "cache-mate" processors

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: <1170238640.2865.4.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:17:20 +0800
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	"Linda W." <lkml@...nx.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux scheduler and "cache-mate" processors


> 1) does the scheduler know enough to try to spread tasks
> equally over both the pairs to make best use of the 16MB total
> cache? (i.e. given cpu bound processes "1" and "2", if they
> are both on CPU "A", then the "C-D" cache remains unused, but
> keeping "1" on "a" and "2" on "C" would tend to minimize
> their caches being consumed by each other.

yes this works just fine


> 2) Since either A&B both have access to the 8MB cache, then
> if a process was running on "A", it seems it would have a
> low migration cost to be scheduled on "B" -- i.e. shouldn't
> the process, if it were migrated to "A"'s "cache-mate", "B",
> be able to benefit by any previous caching done on "A"? 
> If that's true, does the scheduler give preference, when
> migrating a process, to a CPU's "cache-mate"? 

afaik yes as well


-
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/