| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1261563687.4937.120.camel@laptop> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:21:27 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: SCHED: Is task migration necessary in sched_exec(). On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 16:14 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote: > Is task migration necessary in sched_exec()? > > In sched_exec function's comment it says: > > "sched_exec - execve() is a valuable balancing opportunity, because at > this point the task has the smallest effective memory and cache footprint." > > Right, but - when a execve() is called then this task will start execution (that > means this task will not waiting on the runqueue as TASK_RUNNING/WAKING, > it will get the CPU). At this point - what is the necessity to try > making it balance. > By looking at point of "smallest effective memory and cache footprint" , we are > missing the point that we are unnecessarily pushing task when its > about to execute. > > Isn't it? Or I'm missing anything? Well, if there's an imbalance the 'slow' load-balancer will move it around eventually anyway, and since it will then have build up a larger cache footprint it will be even more expensive. So moving it when its cheapest is the best all-round trade-off, isn't it? -- 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