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: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:08:52 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> To: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: wakeup buddy Does something simple like a per-task throttle of wake_affine() gain similar benefits? Say something like only do wake_affine() once every 10 ms or so (counting on the wakee, not waker). The rationale being that wake_affine() relies on load-balance statistics that aren't updated that much faster, so calling it more often than that seems pointless. Something like that should take a lot less lines to implement. Just wondering.. -- 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