linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] select_idle

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: <20160412214502.GI2829@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date:	Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:45:02 +0100
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To:	Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] select_idle_sibling experiments

On Sat, 09 Apr, at 01:30:34PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> 
> [ nohz throttling patch ]
> 
> I tested the nohz throttle two different ways, first with schbench's
> pipe simulation, it's easily 8% faster with messages bouncing between
> cpus.
> 
> In production it's hard to pick a single number because the benchmarks
> produce latency curves as the workload scales up in RPS.  The benefits
> range from 2-9% depending on the metric.  It's a nice win, and I'd love to
> see it go in.

Do we have any idea what the tradeoff is against power consumption for
throttling nohz?