linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 7/9] sched: search SMT before LLC 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: <fadf55b2-c825-8636-6c9a-6eedf9a20733@oracle.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Sep 2019 13:40:47 -0700
From:   Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        steven.sistare@...cle.com, dhaval.giani@...cle.com,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        viresh.kumar@...aro.org, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, parth@...ux.ibm.com,
        patrick.bellasi@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 7/9] sched: search SMT before LLC domain


On 9/5/19 2:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:49:42AM -0700, subhra mazumdar wrote:
>> Search SMT siblings before all CPUs in LLC domain for idle CPU. This helps
>> in L1 cache locality.
>> ---
>>   kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++--
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 8856503..94dd4a32 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -6274,11 +6274,11 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
>>   			return i;
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	i = select_idle_cpu(p, sd, target);
>> +	i = select_idle_smt(p, target);
>>   	if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
>>   		return i;
>>   
>> -	i = select_idle_smt(p, target);
>> +	i = select_idle_cpu(p, sd, target);
>>   	if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
>>   		return i;
>>   
> But it is absolutely conceptually wrong. An idle core is a much better
> target than an idle sibling.
This is select_idle_smt not select_idle_core.