linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] sched: simplify the select_task_rq

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: <51273636.6080907@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:11:18 +0800
From:	Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, alex.shi@...el.com,
	Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>,
	"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] sched: simplify the select_task_rq_fair()

On 02/22/2013 04:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 10:37 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> But that's really some benefit hardly to be estimate, especially when
>> the workload is heavy, the cost of wake_affine() is very high to
>> calculated se one by one, is that worth for some benefit we could not
>> promise?
> 
> Look at something like pipe-test.. wake_affine() used to ensure both
> client/server ran on the same cpu, but then I think we added
> select_idle_sibling() and wrecked it again :/
> 
> $ taskset 1 perf bench sched pipe
> # Running sched/pipe benchmark...
> # Extecuted 1000000 pipe operations between two tasks
> 
>      Total time: 3.761 [sec]
> 
>        3.761725 usecs/op
>          265835 ops/sec
> 
> $ perf bench sched pipe
> # Running sched/pipe benchmark...
> # Extecuted 1000000 pipe operations between two tasks
> 
>      Total time: 29.809 [sec]
> 
>       29.809720 usecs/op
>           33546 ops/sec
> 

Ok, it do looks like wake_affine() lost it's value...

> 
> Now as far as I can see there's two options, either we find there's
> absolutely no benefit in wake_affine() as it stands today and we simply
> disable/remove it, or we go fix it. What we don't do is completely
> wreck it at atrocious cost.

I get your point, we should replace wake_affine() with some feature
which could really achieve the goal to make client and server on same cpu.

But is the logical that the waker/wakee are server/client(or reversed)
still works now? that sounds a little arbitrary to me...

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> --
> 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/
> 

--
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/