linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC/TEST] sched: make sync affine wakeups work

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: <53633B81.1080403@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 02 May 2014 02:30:25 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@....com,
	mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	george.mccollister@...il.com, ktkhai@...allels.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC/TEST] sched: make sync affine wakeups work

On 05/02/2014 02:13 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 00:42 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 
>> Whether or not this is the right thing to do remains to be seen,
>> but it does allow us to verify whether or not the wake_affine
>> strategy of always doing affine wakeups and only disabling them
>> in a specific circumstance is sound, or needs rethinking...
> 
> Yes, it needs rethinking.
> 
> I know why you want to try this, yes, select_idle_sibling() is very much
> a two faced little bitch.

My biggest problem with select_idle_sibling and wake_affine in
general is that it will override NUMA placement, even when
processes only wake each other up infrequently...

-- 
All rights reversed
--
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/