linux-kernel - Re: [patch] sched: fix SMT scheduler regression in find_busiest

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: <1266086376.2677.45.camel@sbs-t61>
Date:	Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:39:36 -0800
From:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To:	"svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Ma, Ling" <ling.ma@...el.com>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	"ego@...ibm.com" <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: fix SMT scheduler regression in
 find_busiest_queue()

On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 11:27 -0700, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> The fix that you have posted will solve the problem described.

Thanks. This SMT scheduler regression is critical for performance and
would like Ingo/Peterz to push this to Linus as soon as possible. We can
fix other known issues when we have patches ready and acceptable to
everyone. Agree?

> However we need to make sched_smt_powersavings also work by increasing
> the group capacity and allowing two tasks to run in a core.

I don't think you saying that this patch breaks sched_smt_powersavings?
If so, We need to address power-saving aspect differently. Atleast this
is not as critical, as we don't have any customer who is using the
smt/mc powersavings tunables.

> As Peter mentioned, SD_PREFER_SIBLING flag is meant to spread the work
> across group at any sched domain so that the solution will work for
> pre-Nehalem quad cores also.  But it still needs some work to get it
> right.

Agree.

> The solution you have posted will not work for non-HT quad cores where
> we want the tasks to be spread across cache domains for best
> performance though not a severe performance regression as in the case
> of Nehalem.

This is completely different issue from this patch and I started another
thread for this.

thanks
suresh


--
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/