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]

Message-ID: <1261565584.4937.124.camel@laptop>
Date:	Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:53:04 +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 16:46 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> 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. 

There is no overloaded task, its the runqueue that is overloaded wrt to
other runqueues. The load-balancer has to pick a 'random' task and pray.
Current heuristics try to pick a task that hasn't been on the cpu for a
while, because for those the effective cache footprint is minimal.

> Why the _current_ task? 

Because at exec it has effective 0 cache footprint, and is thus an ideal
victim to move about.

--
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/