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: <1433341448.1495.4.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 03 Jun 2015 16:24:08 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, mingo@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, umgwanakikbuti@...il.com,
	morten.rasmussen@....com, kernel-team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for
 BALANCE_WAKE

On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 10:12 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:

> There is a policy vs mechanism thing here. Ingo and Peter
> are worried about the overhead in the mechanism of finding
> an idle CPU.  Your measurements show that the policy of
> finding an idle CPU is the correct one.

For his workload; I'm sure I can find a workload where it hurts.

In fact, I'm fairly sure Mike knows one from the top of his head, seeing
how he's the one playing about trying to shrink that idle search :-)
--
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/