linux-kernel - Re: [patch] sched: introduce SD_BALANCE

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: <20070726221830.GA4113@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:18:30 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc:	npiggin@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: introduce SD_BALANCE_FORK for ht/mc/smp domains


* Siddha, Suresh B <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com> wrote:

> Introduce SD_BALANCE_FORK for HT/MC/SMP domains.
> 
> For HT/MC, as caches are shared, SD_BALANCE_FORK is the right thing to 
> do. Given that NUMA domain already has this flag and the scheduler 
> currently doesn't have the concept of running threads belonging to a 
> process as close as possible(i.e., forking may keep close, but 
> periodic balance later will likely take them far away), introduce 
> SD_BALANCE_FORK for SMP domain too.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>

i'm not opposed to this fundamentally, but it would be nice to better 
map the effects of this change: do you have any particular workload 
under which you've tested this and under which you've seen it makes a 
difference? I'd expect this to improve fork-intense half-idle workloads 
perhaps - things like a make -j3 on a 4-core CPU.

	Ingo
-
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/