linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3

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: <ade66e6d-cc52-4575-2f8f-e4d96c07a33c@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:40:58 -0700
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>,
        "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>,
        Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.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 v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3

On 9/17/19 6:33 PM, Aubrey Li wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 10:14 PM Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:

>>
>> And I have pushed Tim's branch to:
>> https://github.com/aaronlu/linux coresched-v3-v5.1.5-test-tim
>>
>> Mine:
>> https://github.com/aaronlu/linux coresched-v3-v5.1.5-test-core_vruntime


Aubrey,

Thanks for testing with your set up.

I think the test that's of interest is to see my load balancing added on top
of Aaron's fairness patch, instead of using my previous version of
forced idle approach in coresched-v3-v5.1.5-test-tim branch. 
 
I've added my two load balance patches on top of Aaron's patches
in coresched-v3-v5.1.5-test-core_vruntime branch and put it in

https://github.com/pdxChen/gang/tree/coresched-v3-v5.1.5-test-core_vruntime-lb

> 
> As Aaron pointed out, vruntime is with se's weight, which could be a reason
> for the difference.
> 
> So should we go with core vruntime approach?
> Or Tim - do you want to improve forced idle time approach?
> 

I hope to improve the forced idle time later.  But for now let's see if
additional load balance logic can help remove cgroup mismatch
and improve performance, on top of Aaron's fairness patches.

Thanks.

Tim