linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/7] sched: Replace sd_busy/nr_busy_cpus with sched_domain

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: <20160511181110.GC3205@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 11 May 2016 20:11:10 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, clm@...com,
	mgalbraith@...e.de, tglx@...utronix.de, fweisbec@...il.com,
	srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mikey@...ling.org, anton@...ba.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/7] sched: Replace sd_busy/nr_busy_cpus with
 sched_domain_shared

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 02:33:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Do we want to model this co-operative L3 slices thing as a sort of
> node-wide LLC for the purpose of the scheduler ?
> 
> the scheduler does try and scale things by 'assuming' LLC := node.

So this whole series is about selecting idle CPUs to run stuff on. With
the current PPC setup we would never consider placing a task outside of
its core.

If we were to add a node wide cache domain, the scheduler would look to
place a task across cores if there is an idle core to be had.

Would something like that be beneficial?