linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: wake-affine throttle

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: <20130422103521.GA14103@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:35:21 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	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: wake-affine throttle


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> OK,.. Ingo said that pipe-test was the original motivation for 
> wake_affine() and since that's currently broken to pieces due to 
> select_idle_sibling() is there still a benefit to having it at all?
> 
> Can anybody find any significant regression when simply killing 
> wake_affine()?

I'd suggest doing a patch that does:

   s/SD_WAKE_AFFINE/0*SD_WAKE_AFFINE

in all the relevant toplogy.h files, but otherwise keep the logic in 
place. That way it's easy to revert.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/