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: <20070729211644.GC6808@elte.hu>
Date:	Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:16:44 +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:

> They might be doing more exec's and probably covered by exec balance.
> 
> There was a small pthread test case which was calculating the time to 
> create all the threads and how much time each thread took to start 
> running. It appeared as if the threads ran sequentially one after 
> another on a DP system with four cores leading to this SD_BALANCE_FORK 
> observation.

would be nice to dig out that testcase i suspect and quantify the 
benefits of your patch. Another workload which might perform better 
would be linpack: it benefits from fast and immediate 'spreading' of 
freshly forked threads.

	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/