linux-kernel - Re: sched: Avoid SMT siblings in select_idle

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:36:22 +0530
From:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: sched: Avoid SMT siblings in select_idle_sibling() if possible

* Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> [2012-02-20 19:25:43]:

> > I can give that a try for my benchmark and see how much it helps. My
> > suspicion is it will not fully solve the problem I have on hand.
> 
> I doubt it will either.  Your problem is when it doesn't succeed, but
> you have an idle core available in another domain.

fwiw the patch I had sent does a wakeup balance within prev_cpu's
cache_domain (and not outside). It handles the case where we don't have
any idle cpu/core within prev_cpu's cache domain, in which case we look
for next best thing (least loaded cpu). I did see good numbers with that
(for both my benchmark and sysbench).

More on this later in the day ..

- vatsa

--
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/