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, 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