linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE

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: <1432811789.3237.138.camel@novell.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 May 2015 13:16:29 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...ell.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, riel@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for
 BALANCE_WAKE

On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 12:21 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> In fact, select_idle_sibling() is already too expensive on current
> server hardware (far too damn many cpus in a LLC domain).

Yup.  I've played with rate limiting motion per task because of that.
Packages have gotten way too damn big.

	-Mike

--
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/