linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 5/6] sched: pack the idle load balance

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: <1364308932.5053.46.camel@laptop>
Date:	Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:42:12 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	linux@....linux.org.uk, pjt@...gle.com, santosh.shilimkar@...com,
	morten.rasmussen@....com, chander.kashyap@...aro.org,
	cmetcalf@...era.com, tony.luck@...el.com, alex.shi@...el.com,
	preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, len.brown@...el.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
	amit.kucheria@...aro.org, corbet@....net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 5/6] sched: pack the idle load balance

On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 15:03 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > But ha! here's your NO_HZ link.. but does the above DTRT and ensure
> > that the ILB is a little core when possible?
> 
> The loop looks for an idle CPU as close as possible to the buddy CPU
> and the buddy CPU is the 1st CPU has been chosen. So if your buddy is
> a little and there is an idle little, the ILB will be this idle
> little.

Earlier you wrote:

>       | Cluster 0   | Cluster 1   |
>       | CPU0 | CPU1 | CPU2 | CPU3 |
> -----------------------------------
> buddy | CPU0 | CPU0 | CPU0 | CPU2 |

So extrapolating that to a 4+4 big-little you'd get something like:

      |   little  A9  ||   big A15     |
      | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 || 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
------+---+---+---+---++---+---+---+---+
buddy | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 || 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 |

Right?

So supposing the current ILB is 6, we'll only check 4, not 0-3, even
though there might be a perfectly idle cpu in there.

Also, your scheme fails to pack when cpus 0,4 are filled, even when
there's idle cores around.

If we'd use the ILB as packing cpu, we would simply select a next pack
target once the old one fills up.

--
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/