linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2

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: <20190508023009.GA89792@aaronlu>
Date:   Wed, 8 May 2019 10:30:09 +0800
From:   Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>
Cc:     Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, pjt@...gle.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com,
        fweisbec@...il.com, keescook@...omium.org, kerrnel@...gle.com,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2

On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 03:39:37PM -0400, Julien Desfossez wrote:
> On 29-Apr-2019 11:53:21 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > This is what I have used to make sure no two unmatched tasks being
> > scheduled on the same core: (on top of v1, I thinks it's easier to just
> > show the diff instead of commenting on various places of the patches :-)
> 
> We imported this fix in v2 and made some small changes and optimizations
> (with and without Peter’s fix from https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/4/26/658)
> and in both cases, the performance problem where the core can end up

By 'core', do you mean a logical CPU(hyperthread) or the entire core?

> idle with tasks in its runqueues came back.

Assume you meant a hyperthread, then the question is: when a hyperthread
is idle with tasks sitting in its runqueue, do these tasks match with the
other hyperthread's rq->curr? If so, then it is a problem that need to
be addressed; if not, then this is due to the constraint imposed by the
mitigation of L1TF.

Thanks.