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  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, 10 Jul 2014 15:58:20 +0200
From:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/12] sched: test the cpu's capacity in wake affine

On 10 July 2014 13:06, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:05:38PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Currently the task always wakes affine on this_cpu if the latter is idle.
>> Before waking up the task on this_cpu, we check that this_cpu capacity is not
>> significantly reduced because of RT tasks or irq activity.
>>
>> Use case where the number of irq and/or the time spent under irq is important
>> will take benefit of this because the task that is woken up by irq or softirq
>> will not use the same CPU than irq (and softirq) but a idle one which share
>> its cache.
>
> The above, doesn't seem to explain:
>
>> +     } else if (!(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES)) {
>> +             this_eff_load = 0;
>> +     }
>> +
>> +     balanced = this_eff_load <= prev_eff_load;
>
> this. Why would you unconditionally allow wake_affine across cache
> domains?

The current policy is to use this_cpu if this_load <= 0. I want to
keep the current wake affine policy for all sched_domain that doesn't
share cache so if the involved CPUs don't share cache, I clear
this_eff_load to force balanced to be true. But when CPUs share their
cache,  we not only look at idleness but also at available capacity of
prev and local CPUs.
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists