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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:02:23 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>, Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>, "Li, Tong N" <tong.n.li@...el.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> Subject: Re: scheduler scalability - cgroups, cpusets and load-balancing On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:57:22AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 10:53 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > My thoughts were to make stronger use of disjoint cpu-sets. cgroups and > > cpusets are related, in that cpusets provide a property to a cgroup. > > However, load_balance_monitor()'s interaction with sched domains > > confuses me - it might DTRT, but I can't tell. > > > > [ It looks to me it balances a group over the largest SD the current cpu > > has access to, even though that might be larger than the SD associated > > with the cpuset of that particular cgroup. ] > > Hmm, with a bit more thought I think that does indeed DTRT. Because, if > the cpu belongs to a disjoint cpuset, the highest sd (with > load-balancing enabled) would be that. Right? Hi Peter, Yes, I was having this in mind when I wrote the load_balance_monitor() function - to only balance across cpus that form a disjoint cpuset in the system. > [ Just a bit of a shame we have all cgroups represented on each cpu. ] After reading your explanation in the other mail abt what you mean here, I agree. Your suggestion to remove/add cfs_rq from/to the leaf_cfs_rq_list upon dequeue_of_last_task/enqueue_of_first_task AND > Also, might be a nice idea to split the daemon up if there are indeed > disjoint sets - currently there is only a single daemon which touches > the whole system. the above suggestions seems like good ideas. I can also look at reducing the frequency at which the thread runs .. -- Regards, vatsa -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists