linux-kernel - Re: CPU scheduler weirdness?

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: <alpine.LNX.2.00.0908131720050.8321@cinke.fazekas.hu>
Date:	Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:39:10 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Marton Balint <cus@...ekas.hu>
To:	Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: CPU scheduler weirdness?

>> Does anybody have any idea what can cause this?
>
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/sched_smt_power_savings , perhaps?

Thanks for the tip, tuning the sched_mc_power_savings setting helped! The 
original value of it was 0, but after setting it to 1, the two 
cpu-intensive processes got scheduled to different CPU cores, as expected.

Setting it back to 0 casused the two cpu-intensive processes to run on 
the same CPU again. So I guess I will just set it to 1 after booting the 
system.

But just out of curiousity, this strange behaviour of the scheduler 
without poking sched_mc_power_savings is a bug or a feature?

Regards,
   Marton
--
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/