linux-kernel - Re: [patch v4 0/18] sched: simplified fork, release load avg and power awareness scheduling

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: <510727FF.4010406@intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:38:07 +0800
From:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
CC:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, pjt@...gle.com,
	namhyung@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch v4 0/18] sched: simplified fork, release load avg and
 power awareness scheduling

On 01/28/2013 11:55 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 16:22 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: 
>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:40:46PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>>> No no, that's not restricted to one node.  It's just overloaded because
>>>> I turned balancing off at the NODE domain level.
>>>
>>> Which shows only that I was multitasking, and in a rush.  Boy was that
>>> dumb.  Hohum.
>>
>> Ok, let's take a step back and slow it down a bit so that people like me
>> can understand it: you want to try it with disabled load balancing on
>> the node level, AFAICT. But with that many tasks, perf will suck anyway,
>> no? Unless you want to benchmark the numa-aware aspect and see whether
>> load balancing on the node level feels differently, perf-wise?
> 
> The broken thought was, since it's not wakeup path, stop node balance..
> but killing all of it killed FORK/EXEC balance, oops.

Um. sure. so guess all of tasks just running on one node.
> 
> I think I'm done with this thing though.  See mail I just sent.   There
> are better things to do than letting box jerk my chain endlessly ;-)
> 
> -Mike
> 


-- 
Thanks Alex
--
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/