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: <CAPM31RKaneDL_D-jXZegtRYxw0kf=PyiR_kdR9izM+-Q_QBC1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:49:50 -0700
From:	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	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

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:23 AM, 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()?
>

This matches our experience; we've always tuned toward a more
aggressive select_idle_sibling() for in-socket wake-ups.

We did recently turn it back on in the cross-socket case (e.g.
SD_NODE) however as we were able to observe a benefit on a few
workloads.
--
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/