linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH v5 00/14] sched: packing 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:36:30 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"alex.shi@...el.com" <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"len.brown@...el.com" <len.brown@...el.com>,
	l.majewski@...sung.com, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v5 00/14] sched: packing tasks

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:33:45AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:

tl;dr :-) Still trying to wrap my head around how to do that weird
topology Vincent raised..

> Question for Peter/Ingo: do you want the scheduler to decide on which
> C-state a CPU should be in or we still leave this to a cpuidle
> layer/driver?

I think the can leave most of that in a driver; right along with how to
prod the hardware to actually get into that state.

I think the most important parts are what is now 'generic' code; stuff
that guestimates the idle-time and so forth.

I think the scheduler simply wants to say: we expect to go idle for X
ns, we want a guaranteed wakeup latency of Y ns -- go do your thing.

I think you also raised the point in that we do want some feedback as to
the cost of waking up particular cores to better make decisions on which
to wake. That is indeed so.
--
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/