linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/2] sched: unified sched

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: <4F21386C.5000809@kernel.dk>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:26:36 +0100
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC:	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Indan Zupancic <indan@....nu>,
	Youquan Song <youquan.song@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/2] sched: unified sched_powersavings sysfs tunable

On 01/26/2012 12:08 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 11:42 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 01/25/2012 03:53 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
>>> Jens, what is this thing trying to do?
>>
>> The intent of the code
>> is to return the first CPU in the "group" that the passed in core/thread
>> belongs to. This is used to decide whether to perform a completion
>> locally, or to send it off to a different "group".
> 
> Would you perhaps have meant to identify some shared cache domain?
> 
> In the scheduler core code we have (for CONFIG_SMP):
> 
>   static int ttwu_share_cache(int this_cpu, int that_cpu);
> 
> which returns true if this and that share a cache and false otherwise.
> Would that suffice or do you need a slightly different form? That is, we
> should provide you with some API and avoid you having to poke around
> with CONFIG_SCHED* and topology bits methinks.

Yeah, I think that would suit my purpose nicely, in fact. What level of
cache sharing is being used here? The block code wanted a per-socket
type operation, but since it's a heuristic, perhaps the above is even
better (or equivelant, perhaps).

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/