linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/7] sched,numa: remove task_h_load from task_numa

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:	Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:31:38 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chegu_vinod@...com, mgorman@...e.de,
	mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/7] sched,numa: remove task_h_load from task_numa_compare

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 01:25:00AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 06/25/2014 01:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:07:35AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> Shall I merge this into patch 3?
> > 
> > Which gets me the below; which is has a wrong changelog.
> > 
> > task_h_load() already computes the load as seen from the root
> > group. effective_load() just does a better (and more expensive) job
> > of computing the task movement implications of a move.
> > 
> > So the total effect of this patch shouldn't be very big; regular
> > load balancing also only uses task_h_load(), see move_tasks().
> > 
> > Now, we don't run with preemption disabled, don't run as often,
> > etc.., so maybe we can indeed use the more expensive variant just
> > fine, but does it really matter?
> 
> In my testing, it appears to make a difference between workloads
> converging, and workloads sitting with one last thread stuck on
> another node that never gets moved...

Fair enough; can you provide a new Changelog that I can paste in?

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped