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: <515BC3E0.1080802@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:53:36 +0800
From:	Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
CC:	mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de,
	pjt@...gle.com, namhyung@...nel.org, efault@....de,
	morten.rasmussen@....com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	len.brown@...el.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, jkosina@...e.cz,
	clark.williams@...il.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
	keescook@...omium.org, mgorman@...e.de, riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [patch v3 0/8] sched: use runnable avg in load balance

On 04/03/2013 01:38 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 04/03/2013 12:28 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> but the patch may cause some unfairness if this/prev cpu are not burst at 
>> same time. So could like try the following patch?
> 
> I will try it later, some doubt below :)
> 
> [snip]
>> +
>> +	if (cpu_rq(this_cpu)->avg_idle < sysctl_sched_migration_cost ||
>> +		cpu_rq(prev_cpu)->avg_idle < sysctl_sched_migration_cost)
>> +		burst= 1;
>> +
>> +	/* use instant load for bursty waking up */
>> +	if (!burst) {
>> +		load = source_load(prev_cpu, idx);
>> +		this_load = target_load(this_cpu, idx);
>> +	} else {
>> +		load = cpu_rq(prev_cpu)->load.weight;
>> +		this_load = cpu_rq(this_cpu)->load.weight;
> 
> Ok, my understanding is, we want pull if 'prev_cpu' is burst, and don't
> want pull if 'this_cpu' is burst, correct?
> 
> And we do this by guess the load higher or lower, is that right?
> 
> And I think target_load() is capable enough to choose the higher load,
> if 'cpu_rq(cpu)->load.weight' is really higher, the results will be the
> same.
> 
> So what about this:
> 
> 	/* prefer higher load if burst */
> 	load = burst_prev ?

And this check could also be:

	load = burst_prev && !burst_this ?

if we don't prefer the pull when this_cpu also bursted.

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 		target_load(prev_cpu, idx) : source_load(prev_cpu, idx);
> 
> 	this_load = target_load(this_cpu, idx);
> 
> Regards,
> Michael Wang
> 
>> +	}
>>
>>  	/*
>>  	 * If sync wakeup then subtract the (maximum possible)
>>
> 

--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ