linux-kernel - Re: sched: tweak select_idle_sibling to look for idle threads

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: <1460282661.4251.44.camel@suse.de>
Date:	Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:04:21 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de>
To:	Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
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.

	-Mike