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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:20:33 -0500
From:	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
CC:	"Linda W." <lkml@...nx.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux scheduler and "cache-mate" processors

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> 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
>
>   
You do have to enable "Multi-core scheduler support" in the kernel
.config, though.

-
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/