linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Prefer idle CPU to cache affinity

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210301170601.GJ2028034@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Mar 2021 22:36:01 +0530
From:   Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
        Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Prefer idle CPU to cache affinity

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2021-03-01 16:44:42]:

> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 02:56:07PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Fri, 2021-02-26 at 22:10 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> 
> > > +	if (sched_feat(WA_WAKER) && tnr_busy < tllc_size)
> > > +		return this_cpu;
> > 
> > I wonder if we need to use a slightly lower threshold on
> > very large LLCs, both to account for the fact that the
> > select_idle_cpu code may not find the single idle CPU
> > among a dozen busy ones, or because on a system with
> > hyperthreading we may often be better off picking another
> > LLC for HT contention issues?
> > 
> > Maybe we could use "tnr_busy * 4 <
> > tllc_size * 3" or
> > something like that?
> 
> How about:
> 
> 	tnr_busy < tllc_size / topology_max_smt_threads()
> 
> ?

Isn't topology_max_smt_threads only for x86 as of today?
Or Am I missing out?


-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju