| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1963557866.68748.1320049115504.JavaMail.mail@webmail05> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:18:35 +0000 (GMT) From: "Artem S. Tashkinov" <t.artem@...os.com> To: yong.zhang0@...il.com Cc: arjan@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org Subject: Re: Re: Re: HT (Hyper Threading) aware process scheduling doesn't work as it should > > (Cc'ing more people) > > Maybe you can also show your test case here? > The test case is perfectly outlined in the first message I posted to LKML but I can repeat it for you ( https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/30/106 ). On a HT enabled completely idle system run as many different tasks as you have real CPU cores, e.g. on an Intel Core i7 2600 CPU, that will be four tasks. For the best performance all tasks should be attached to different physical cores. However often the opposite behaviour can be observed, the process scheduler binds pairs of tasks to virtual HT cores of the same physical CPU module, e.g. in theory you should get this distribution of tasks: 1:3:5:7 but often I get this distribution 1:6:7:8 (three physical cores loaded instead of four) or 1:2:7:8 (two physical cores loaded instead of four). Artem -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists