linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Resolve sd_idle and first_idle_cpu Catch-22

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:55:28 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc:	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Resolve sd_idle and first_idle_cpu Catch-22 - v1

On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 11:53 -0800, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> 
> Peter, to answer your question of why SMT is treated different to cores
> sharing cache, performance improvements contributed by SMT is far less
> compared to the cores and any wrong decisions in SMT load balancing
> (especially in the presence of idle cores, packages) has a bigger
> impact.
> 
> I think in the tbench case referred by Nick, idle HT siblings in a busy
> package picked the load instead of the idle packages. And thus we
> probably had to wait for active load balance to kick in to distribute
> the load etc by which the damage would have been. Performance impact of
> this condition wouldn't be as severe in the cores sharing last level
> cache and other resources.
> 
> Also there are lot of changes in this area since 2005. So it would be
> nice to revisit the tbench case and see if the logic of propagating busy
> sibling status to the higher level load balances is still needed or not.
> 
> On the contrary, perhaps there might be some workloads which may benefit
> in performance/latency if we completely do away with this less
> aggressive SMT load balancing. 

Right, but our current capacity logic does exactly that and seems to
work for more than 2 smt siblings (it does the whole asymmetric power7
muck).

>From a quick glance at the sched.c state at the time of Nick's patch,
the capacity logic wasn't around then.

So I see no reason what so ever to keep this SMT exception.

--
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/