linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/2] sched: reduce migration cost between faster caches for 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]

Date:   Thu, 15 Feb 2018 19:39:28 +0100
From:   Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:     Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
        Rohit Jain <rohit.k.jain@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, joelaf@...gle.com,
        jbacik@...com, riel@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        dhaval.giani@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] sched: reduce migration cost between faster caches
 for idle_balance

On Thu, 2018-02-15 at 13:21 -0500, Steven Sistare wrote:
> On 2/15/2018 1:07 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 
> >> Can you provide more details on the sysbench oltp test that motivated you
> >> to add sysctl_sched_migration_cost to idle_balance, so Rohit can re-test it?
> > 
> > The problem at that time was the cycle overhead of entering that LB
> > path at high frequency.  Dirt simple.
> 
> I get that. I meant please provide details on test parameters and config if
> you remember them.

Nope.  I doubt it would be relevant to here/now anyway.

	-Mike