linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 7/9] housekeeping: Use own boot option, independant from nohz

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: <20170815153005.GJ7017@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Aug 2017 08:30:05 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 7/9] housekeeping: Use own boot option, independant
 from nohz

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 05:15:23PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 15:07 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:29:46PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 13:34 -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:01:09 +0200
> > > > 
> > > > > What is the source of the load balancing inducing such latency when a single
> > > > > task is affine to a CPU? If this is idle load balancing, it is now affine to
> > > > > housekeepers. If this is task wakeup then it's suprising because select_task_rq()
> > > > > is optimized toward single CPU affinity.
> > > > 
> > > > I guess it was idle load balancing, but I don't remember because this
> > > > was a few years ago. I think this might be reproducible without using
> > > > isolcpus=. I'll give it a try shortly and let you know.
> > > 
> > > idle_balance() can swamp other noise by a couple orders of magnitude,
> > 
> > Ah I missed that one. Is there any way we can also lower the overhead there?
> 
> Why?  HPC proggies won't benefit from a partially filled pothole any
> more that a ~zero ground clearance formula 1 car would.  The pothole
> intolerant either isolate, killing (most) LB, or they meet a wall.

Don't the HPC guys just disable idle_balance(), or am I out of date again?

							Thanx, Paul