linux-kernel - Re: [patch] sched: optimize siblings status check logic in wake

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]

Message-ID: <20070304202453.D27368@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
Date:	Sun, 4 Mar 2007 20:24:53 -0800
From:	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: optimize siblings status check logic in wake_idle()

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 05:58:31AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 08:13:09PM -0800, Suresh B wrote:
> > On a 16 node system, we have seen ~1.25% perf improvement on a database workload
> > when we completely short circuited wake_idle(). This patch is trying to comeup
> > with a best compromise to avoid the cache misses and also minimize the latenices,
> > perf impact.
> 
> Hmm, I wonder what if we only wake_idle if the wakeup comes from this
> CPU or a sibling? That's probably going to have downsides in some
> workloads as well, though.

yep. I thought about it and thought this patch is a decent solution.

thanks,
suresh
-
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/