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]

Date:	Tue, 20 Dec 2011 07:26:18 +0530
From:	Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	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:
> 
> Anyway, I had a look at your patches and I don't see how could ever
> work. You gang-schedule cgroup entities, but there's no guarantee the
> load-balancer will have at least one task for each group on every cpu.
>
As stated earlier:

    The gang scheduling problem can be broken into two parts:
    a) Placement of the tasks to be gang scheduled 
    b) Synchronized scheduling of the tasks across a subset of cpu.

In the patch, I have (b) implemented and placement is done by pinning
the vcpu of a VM in userspace. Yes, thats not the right way. 

Effectively, no trouble to the load-balancer here.

Nikunj

--
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/