linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/7] sched: nominate preferred wakeup cpu

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: <1220880091.12278.16.camel@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:21:31 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Vatsa <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	David Collier-Brown <davecb@....com>,
	Tim Connors <tconnors@...ro.swin.edu.au>,
	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/7] sched: nominate preferred wakeup cpu

On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 18:51 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> When the system utilisation is low and more cpus are idle,
> then the process waking up from sleep should prefer to
> wakeup an idle cpu from semi-idle cpu package (multi core
> package) rather than a completely idle cpu package which
> would waste power.
> 
> Use the sched_mc balance logic in find_busiest_group() to
> nominate a preferred wakeup cpu.
> 
> This info can be sored in appropriate sched_domain, but
> updating this info in all copies of sched_domain is not
> practical.  For now lets try with a global variable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> 
>  kernel/sched.c |   10 ++++++++++
>  1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index 569fc8d..4ae79f5 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -3380,6 +3380,9 @@ out_balanced:
>  
>  	if (this == group_leader && group_leader != group_min) {
>  		*imbalance = min_load_per_task;
> +		if (sched_mc_power_savings >= POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP)
> +			sched_mc_preferred_wakeup_cpu =
> +					first_cpu(group_leader->cpumask);
>  		return group_min;
>  	}
>  #endif
> @@ -6911,6 +6914,13 @@ static void sched_domain_node_span(int node, cpumask_t *span)
>  int sched_smt_power_savings = 0, sched_mc_power_savings = 0;
>  
>  /*
> + * Preferred wake up cpu nominated by sched_mc balance that will be used when
> + * most cpus are idle in the system indicating overall very low system
> + * utilisation. Triggered at POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP (2).
> + */
> +unsigned int sched_mc_preferred_wakeup_cpu;

This cannot be a global variable, what happens when we have two disjoint
load-balance domains?

> +/*
>   * SMT sched-domains:
>   */
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
> 

--
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/