linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: keep quiescent cpu out of idle balance loop

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]

Date:	Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:15:26 +0800
From:	Lei Wen <adrian.wenl@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Lei Wen <leiwen@...vell.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
	preeti.lkml@...il.com, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
	viresh.kumar@...aro.org, xjian@...vell.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: keep quiescent cpu out of idle balance loop

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:42:51AM +0800, Lei Wen wrote:
>> >> -     int ilb = cpumask_first(nohz.idle_cpus_mask);
>> >> +     int ilb;
>> >> +     int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>> >> +     struct sched_domain *tmp;
>> >>
>> >> -     if (ilb < nr_cpu_ids && idle_cpu(ilb))
>> >> -             return ilb;
>> >> +     for_each_domain(cpu, tmp) {
>> >> +             ilb = cpumask_first_and(nohz.idle_cpus_mask,
>> >> +                             sched_domain_span(tmp));
>> >> +             if (ilb < nr_cpu_ids && idle_cpu(ilb))
>> >> +                     return ilb;
>> >> +     }
>> >
>> > The ILB code is bad; but you just made it horrible. Don't add pointless
>> > for_each_domain() iterations.
>> >
>> > I'm thinking something like:
>> >
>> >   ilb = cpumask_first_and(nohz.idle_cpus_mask, this_rq()->rd.span);
>> >
>> > Should work just fine, no?
>>
>> Yes, it has the same result as my previous patch did.
>>
>> >
>> > Better still would be to maybe not participate in the ILB in the first
>> > place and leave this selection loop alone.
>>
>> Not quitely get your point here...
>> Do you mean that you want idle cpu selection be put in earlier place
>> than current find_new_ilb is?
>
> I meant that if you stop an idle CPU setting its bit in
> nohz.idle_cpus_mask, you don't have to mask it out either.

Understand it.
I would reformat my previous patch according to your suggestion.

Thanks,
Lei
--
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/