linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] sched:Implement set_gang

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: <87y5u0t680.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 Dec 2011 08:00:23 +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
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] sched:Implement set_gang_buddy

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:51:48 +0100, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 14:05 +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
> > +       /*
> > +        * Gang buddy, lets be unfair here
> > +        */ 
> 
> And why would you think that's an option?
> 
Long answer, my previous experiments with set_next_buddy showed that the
gang groups were getting lesser cpu bandwidth than the baseline. Then I
thought of having a new helper(set_gang_buddy) that would give better
chance to gang sched tasks. This will only be affecting the following
cpus.  In the cpu, which has gang_leader set, the code is not giving
undue advantage to the gang task.

Regards,
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/