linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: check for idle core

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]

Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:19:36 +0000
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:     Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: check for idle core

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 03:15:50PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Fixes: 11f10e5420f6 ("sched/fair: Use load instead of runnable load in wakeup path")
> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>
> Reviewed-by Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> 

While not a universal win, it was mostly a win or neutral. In few cases
where there was a problem, one benchmark I'm a bit suspicious of generally
as occasionally it generates bad results for unknown and unpredictable
reasons. In another, it was very machine specific and the differences
were small in absolte time rather than relative time. Other tests on the
same machine were fine so overall;

Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>

Thanks.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs