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: <1433345444.3343.21.camel@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 03 Jun 2015 17:30:44 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
	mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	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 16:24 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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 :-)

Like anything where scheduling latency doesn't heavily dominate.  Even
if searching were free, bounces aren't, even for the very light.

	-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/