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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:45:55 +0530
From:	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	vatsa@...ibm.com, Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
	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>,
	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 v3 3/5] sched: nominate preferred wakeup cpu

* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> [2008-11-11 16:26:14]:

> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 20:51 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 09:07:58AM -0500, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> > > > Would it make sense to place the preferred_wakeup_cpu stuff in the
> > > > root_domain structure we already have?
> > > >   
> > > 
> > > From the description, this is exactly what the root-domains were created
> > > to solve.
> > > 
> > > Vaidyanathan,  just declare your object in "struct root_domain" and
> > > initialize it in init_rootdomain() in kernel/sched.c, and then access it
> > > via rq->rd to take advantage of this infrastructure.  It will
> > > automatically follow any partitioning that happens to be configured.
> > 
> > If I understand correctly, we may want to have more than one preferred
> > cpu in a given sched domain, taking into account node topology i.e if a
> > given sched domain encompasses two nodes, then we may like to designate
> > 2 preferred wakeup_cpu's, one per node. If that is the case, then
> > root_domain may not be of use here?
> 
> Agreed, in which case this sched_domain_attr stuff might work out better
> - but I'm not sure I fully get that.. will stare at that a bit more.

The current code that I posted assumes one preferred_wakeup_cpu per
partitioned domain.  Moving the variable to root_domain is a good idea
for this implementation.

In future when we need one preferred_wakeup_cpu per node per
partitioned domain, we will need a array for each partitioned domain.
Having the array in root_domain is better than having it in dattr.

Depending upon experimental results, we may choose to have only one
preferred_wakeup_cpu per partitioned domain.  When the system
utilisation is quite low, it is better to move all movable tasks from
each node to a selected node (0).  This will freeup all CPUs in other
nodes.  Just that we need to consider cache hotness and cross-node
memory access more carefully before crossing a node boundary for
consolidation.

--Vaidy
 
--
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