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: <20150528115537.GA25636@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 May 2015 17:25:37 +0530
From:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
Cc:	riel@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for
 BALANCE_WAKE

> At Facebook we have a pretty heavily multi-threaded application that is
> sensitive to latency.  We have been pulling forward the old SD_WAKE_IDLE code
> because it gives us a pretty significant performance gain (like 20%).  It turns
> out this is because there are cases where the scheduler puts our task on a busy
> CPU when there are idle CPU's in the system.  We verify this by reading the
> cpu_delay_req_avg_us from the scheduler netlink stuff.  With our crappy patch we
> get much lower numbers vs baseline.
>

Was this application run under cpu cgroup. Because we were seeing bursty
workloads exhibiting this behaviour esp when run under cpu cgroups.

http://mid.gmane.org/53A11A89.5000602@linux.vnet.ibm.com

-- 
Thansk and Regards
Srikar

--
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/