linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Gang scheduling in CFS

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: <20111219160949.61461ce7@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:09:49 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	paulus <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Gang scheduling in CFS

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:51:41 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 14:03 +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
> > The following patches implements gang scheduling. These patches
> >     are *highly* experimental in nature and are not proposed for
> >     inclusion at this time.
> 
> Nor will they ever be, I've always strongly opposed the whole concept
> and I'm not about to change my mind. Gang scheduling is a scalability
> nightmare. 

For most situations: I think the question is whether you can write a
clean gang scheduling option which has no impact on "normal" users. 

Yes gang scheduling is insane but for some insane workloads its the right
thing to do.

Alan
--
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/