linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: balance_cpu to consider other cpus in its group as target of (pinned) task migration

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: <1338810695.28282.30.camel@twins>
Date:	Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:51:35 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Prashanth Nageshappa <prashanth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	mingo@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	roland@...nel.org, efault@....de, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: balance_cpu to consider other cpus in its group
 as target of (pinned) task migration

On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 17:11 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2012-06-04 11:00:54]:
> 
> > > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > Did vatsa write this patch?
> 
> I wrote the first version of the patch which Prashanth took, tested,
> fixed a bug and is finally publishing it. So yes,
> 
> > If so, you forgot a From header, if not, wtf!?
> 
> it is missing the From header.
> 
> > OK, so previously we only pulled to ourselves,
> 
> That't not entirely true isn't it i.e this_cpu need not equal
> smp_processor_id even before this change.
> 
> > now you make cpu x move
> > from cpu y to cpu z. This changes the dynamic of the load-balancer, not
> > a single word on that and its impact/ramifications.
> 
> The other possibility is for the right sibling cpus to do load balance
> in the same domain (noting that it needs to pull a task from another
> sched_group to itself and ignoring balance_cpu). That seemed like a more
> invasive change than this patch. We'd be happy to try any other approach
> you have in mind.

Thing is, first thing on Monday morning my brain don't work too fast. If
I then get to basically reverse engineer a patch because people forgot
to mention all the important bits, I get annoyed.

So don't do that ;-)
--
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/