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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:18:00 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr> To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...ia.fr> Subject: Re: SD_LOAD_BALANCE On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 12:34, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr> wrote: > > > > > > Would it be useful to always check whether prev is idle, perhaps in > > > > wake_affine_idle or perhaps in select_idle_sibling? > > > > > > Yes, that would make sense to add a condition in wake_affine_idle to > > > return prev if this cpu is not idle (or about to become idle) > > > > The case where this cpu is idle would be in the interrupt case. If both > > prev cpu and this cpu are idle, is it more desirable to move the thread to > > this cpu or to leave it where it was? > > I think that we should keep the current behavior regarding this cpu > and the shared cache case and add one more test before the last return > of the function. > > right now, we select this_cpu: > -if this cpu is idle, it shares cache with prev and previous is not idle. > -if it's a sync wake up because we expect the task to use local data > of the current running task on this cpu. > > Then we add a new case to return prev cpu if it is idle which is your case OK, sounds good, thanks. julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists