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  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:	Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:04:21 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <>
To:	Chris Mason <>, Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Matt Fleming <>,
Subject: Re: sched: tweak select_idle_sibling to look for idle threads

On Sat, 2016-04-09 at 15:05 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:

> This does preserve the existing logic to prefer idle cores over idle
> CPU threads, and includes some tests to try and avoid the idle scan when we're
> actually better off sharing a non-idle CPU with someone else.

My box says the "oh nevermind" checks aren't selective enough, tbench
dropped 4% at clients=cores, and 2% at clients=threads.

> Benchmarks in production show overall capacity going up between 2-5%
> depending on the metric.

Latency rules all loads certainly exist, and clearly want some love,
but the bigger the socket, and the more threads/core, the more that
traverse is gonna hurt the others, so seems either we need a better
filter, or a (yeah yeah, yet another damn) tweakable.

Oh, and bounce_to_target() seems an odd way to say full_traverse.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists