linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] scheduler fixes

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: <20080511143227.GA3220@elte.hu>
Date:	Sun, 11 May 2008 16:32:27 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc:	Sven Wegener <sven.wegener@...aler.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] scheduler fixes


* Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> wrote:

> > the gain is rather obvious: two parallel up()s (or just up()s which 
> > come close enough after each other) will wake up two tasks in 
> > parallel. With your patch, the first guy wakes up and then it wakes 
> > up the second guy. I.e. your patch serializes the wakeup chain, mine 
> > keeps it parallel.
> 
> Yup.  I explained why that's actually beneficial in an earlier email.

but the problem is that by serializing the wakeup chains naively you 
introduced a more than 50% AIM7 performance regression.

	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/