linux-kernel - Re: [Patch] Idle balancer: cache align nohz structure to improve idle load balancing scalability

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1319132334.8653.4.camel@laptop>
Date:	Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:38:54 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Venki Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch] Idle balancer: cache align nohz structure to improve
 idle load balancing scalability

On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 05:26 -0700, Venki Pallipadi wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> > Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com> writes:
> >>   */
> >>  static struct {
> >> -     atomic_t load_balancer;
> >> -     atomic_t first_pick_cpu;
> >> -     atomic_t second_pick_cpu;
> >> -     cpumask_var_t idle_cpus_mask;
> >> +     atomic_t load_balancer ____cacheline_aligned;
> >> +     atomic_t first_pick_cpu ____cacheline_aligned;
> >> +     atomic_t second_pick_cpu ____cacheline_aligned;
> >> +     cpumask_var_t idle_cpus_mask ____cacheline_aligned;
> >
> > On large configs idle_cpu_masks may be allocated.  May need
> > more changes to tell the allocator to cache align/pad too?
> >
> 
> An alternate approach is to split this struct per node/socket and do
> the nohz idle balancing logic at that level. That should be more
> scalable in terms of nohz balancing (ensure one CPU wont be doing nohz
> balancing for huge number of idle CPUs). I had looked at that approach
> couple of years earlier and couldn't measure that much of a gain. May
> be it is time to revisit that with increased core count.

Yeah, that would be best, although I remember there was a problem with
your approach back then, a fully idle node would not balance at all or
something like that.

--
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/