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: <5127438E.1060404@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:08:14 +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 05:57 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 17:11 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> 
>> Ok, it do looks like wake_affine() lost it's value...
> 
> I'm not sure we can say that on this one benchmark, there's a
> preemption advantage to running on a single cpu for pipe-test as well.
> We'd need to create a better benchmark to test this, one that has some
> actual data payload and control over the initial spread of the tasks or
> so.
> 
>>> 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...
> 
> Ah, its never really been about server/client per-se. Its just a
> specific example -- one that breaks down with the 1:n pgbench
> situation.
> 
> Wakeups in general can be considered to be a relation, suppose a
> hardware interrupt that received some data from a device and issues a
> wakeup to a task to consume this data. What CPU would be better suited
> to process this data then the one where its already cache hot.

I see, honestly, I realized that I have underestimated the benefit we
gain from it when saw your testing results...

We do need some better approach to replace wake_affine(), hmm...I need a
draft board now...

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/