linux-kernel - Re: SCHED: Is task migration necessary in sched

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]

Date:	Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:46:31 +0600
From:	Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: SCHED: Is task migration necessary in sched_exec().

On 12/23/09, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 16:14 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
If there is an imbalance - then the overloaded task will moved. Why the
_current_ task? It is getting the CPU that it was waiting for. We need to
move overloaded task, not a task which is about to get execute. At this
perticular moment pushing it away doesn't make sense, isn't it?

>  So moving it when its cheapest is the best all-round trade-off, isn't
>  it?

I don't have any argue with cache footprint issue.
>
>
thanks,
--
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/