linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] accelerate newidle balancing in relax

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <491C164F.4030907@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:58:07 +0900
From:	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] accelerate newidle balancing in relax_domain

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> I agree with making it more sensitive to momentary load fluctuations. 
> (as long as other metrics do not degrade).
> 
> But this solutin basically overrides the newidle_idx tuning in 
> topology.h.
> 
> Is there a strong reason to do this tuning dynamically, or could we 
> just decrease newidle_idx in the appropriate templates in the 
> topology.h files?

IMHO topology.h should have proper values that will fit 'standard'
system usage.  I'm not sure that the current values (such as 2 in
SD_NODE) is best number or not... And I think it can differ by archs.

If there are no features that will be affected by the changing
default newidle_idx values, then we can fix it in the templates.
It would be a strong reason - I don't like regression :-)


Thanks,
H.Seto

--
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/