linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/topology: Improve load balancing on AMD EPYC

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: <20190610212620.GA4772@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jun 2019 22:26:20 +0100
From:   Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Suthikulpanit, Suravee" <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/topology: Improve load balancing on AMD EPYC

On Wed, 05 Jun, at 08:00:35PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> And then we had two magic values :/
> 
> Should we not 'fix' RECLAIM_DISTANCE for EPYC or something? Because
> surely, if we want to load-balance agressively over 30, then so too
> should we do node_reclaim() I'm thikning.

Yeah we can fix it just for EPYC, Mel suggested that approach originally.

Suravee, Tom, what's the best way to detect these EPYC machines that need to
override RECLAIM_DISTANCE?