linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4

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: <29d43466-1e18-6b42-d4d0-20ccde20ff07@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:37:04 -0800
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>
Cc:     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>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>,
        Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.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 v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4

On 2/12/20 3:07 PM, Julien Desfossez wrote:

>>
>> Have you guys been able to make progress on the issues with I/O intensive workload?
> 
> I finally have some results with the following branch:
> https://github.com/digitalocean/linux-coresched/tree/coresched/v4-v5.5.y
> 
> 
> So the main conclusion is that for all the test cases we have studied,
> core scheduling performs better than nosmt ! This is different than what
> we tested a while back, so it's looking really good !

Thanks for the data.  They look really encouraging.

Aubrey is working on updating his patches so it will load balance
to the idle cores a bit better.  We are testing those and will post
the update soon.

Tim