linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] load-balancing and 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: <1251985136.7352.1.camel@laptop>
Date:	Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:38:56 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] load-balancing and cpu_power -v2

On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 14:10 +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 10:34:31AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > Anyway, have at it, poke holes and report issues.
> 
> Tested it (to a certain extend).
> Found no performance degradation (on 1P, 2P, 4P systems). (One could
> think performance might slightly degrade due to more frequent
> __cpu_power updates).

Grand.

> This applies to modification of sched_mc_power_savings. And I think
> one of above scenarios is already broken in tip/master w/o your
> patches.

I suspect so, but confirmation would be good, I don't have a single
machine large enough to actually test any of that power saving muck.

> Otherwise especially wrt to integration of APERF/MPERF this seems to
> be a good approach.

On that, are there AMD systems supporting APERF/MPERF? I only know of
Intel machines doing so.

--
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/