linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] scheduler: improve SMP fairness in CFS

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:11:07 -0700
From:	"Li, Tong N" <tong.n.li@...el.com>
To:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] scheduler: improve SMP fairness in CFS

On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 04:07 -0400, Chris Snook wrote:

> To clarify, I'm not suggesting that the "balance with cpu (x+1)%n only" 
> algorithm is the only way to do this.  Rather, I'm pointing out that 
> even an extremely simple algorithm can give you fair loading when you 
> already have CFS managing the runqueues.  There are countless more 
> sophisticated ways we could do this without using global locking, or 
> possibly without any locking at all, other than the locking we already 
> use during migration.
> 
> 	-- Chris

Yes, as Andi and Chris also pointed out, I'll think about if global
synchronization can be removed or relaxed.

Thanks,

  tong
-
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/