linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/6] sched: pack small tasks

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]

Date:	Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:54:09 +0100
From:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	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, amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
	corbet@....net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/6] sched: pack small tasks

On 27 March 2013 09:46, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 08:29 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> > Isn't this basically related to picking the NO_HZ cpu; if the system
>> > isn't fully symmetric with its power gates you want the NO_HZ cpu to be
>> > the 'special' cpu. If it is symmetric we really don't care which core
>> > is left 'running' and we can even select a new pack cpu from the idle
>> > cores once the old one is fully utilized.
>>
>> you don't really care much sure, but there's some advantages for sorting "all the way left",
>> e.g. to linux cpu 0.
>> Some tasks only run there, and interrupts tend to be favored to that cpu as well on x86.
>
> Right, and I suspect all the big-little nonsense will have the little
> cores on low numbers as well (is this architected or can a creative
> licensee screw us over?)

It's not mandatory to have little cores on low numbers even if it's advised

>
> So find_new_ilb() already does cpumask_first(), so it has a strong
> leftmost preference. We just need to make sure it indeed does the right
> thing and doesn't have some unintended side effect.
>
--
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/