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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <1330405514.17181.29.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date:	Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:05:14 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	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

On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 14:11 -0800, Suresh Siddha wrote: 
> On Sat, 2012-02-25 at 09:30 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > My less rotund config shows the L2 penalty decidedly more prominently.
> > We used to have avg_overlap as a synchronous wakeup hint, but it was
> > broken by preemption and whatnot, got the axe to recover some cycles.  A
> > reliable and dirt cheap replacement would be a good thing to have.
> > 
> > TCP_RR and tbench are far way away from the overlap breakeven point on
> > E5620, whereas with Q6600s shared L2, you can start converting overlap
> > into throughput almost immediately. 
> > 
> > 2.4 GHz E5620
> > Throughput 248.994 MB/sec 1 procs  SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES
> > Throughput 379.488 MB/sec 1 procs  !SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES
> > 
> > 2.4 GHz Q6600
> > Throughput 299.049 MB/sec 1 procs  SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES
> > Throughput 300.018 MB/sec 1 procs  !SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES
> > 
> 
> Also it is not always about just the L2 cache being shared/not or
> warm/cold etc. It also depends on the core c-states/p-states etc. It
> will cost waking up an idle core and the cost will depend on the what
> core-c state it is in. And also if we ping-pong between cores often,
> cpufreq governor will come and request for a lower core p-state even
> though the load was keeping one core or the other in the socket always
> busy at any given point of time.

Yeah, pinning yields a couple percent on Q6600 box, more on E5620
despite its spiffier gearbox.. likely turbo-boost doing it's thing.

-Mike

--
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/