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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:05:55 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Netperf UDP_STREAM regression due to not sending IPIs in ttwu_queue() On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 13:29 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > Do we really switch more though? > > Look at the difference in interrupts vs context switch. IPIs are an interrupt > so if TTWU_QUEUE wakes process B using an IPI, does that count as a context > switch? Nope. Nor would it for NO_TTWU_QUEUE. A process waking another is just that, a wakeup. A context switch is when we stop running a process and start running anther. A wakeup can lead to us deciding the newly woken task is a better task to run, however its not a given. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists