linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] sched: CPU topology try

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:	Wed, 8 Jan 2014 13:45:34 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Cc:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <Dietmar.Eggemann@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"pjt@...gle.com" <pjt@...gle.com>,
	"cmetcalf@...era.com" <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"alex.shi@...aro.org" <alex.shi@...aro.org>,
	"preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"len.brown@...el.com" <len.brown@...el.com>,
	"arjan@...ux.intel.com" <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	"amit.kucheria@...aro.org" <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
	"james.hogan@...tec.com" <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
	"schwidefsky@...ibm.com" <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	"heiko.carstens@...ibm.com" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: CPU topology try

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 12:35:34PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > Currently we detect overload by sg.nr_running >= sg.capacity, which can
> > be very misleading because while a cpu might have a task running 'now'
> > it might be 99% idle.
> > 
> > At which point I argued we should change the capacity thing anyhow. Ever
> > since the runnable_avg patch set I've been arguing to change that into
> > an actual utilization test.
> > 
> > So I think that if we measure overload by something like >95% utilization
> > on the entire group the load scaling again makes perfect sense.
> 
> I agree that it make more sense to change the overload test to be based
> on some tracked load. How about the non-overloaded case? Load balancing
> would have to be based on unweighted task loads in that case?

Yeah, until we're overloaded our goal is to minimize idle time.
--
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/