linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Age the average idle time

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: <YMkX+MMVV0aMjmR8@lorien.usersys.redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:13:28 -0400
From:   Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Age the average idle time

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 10:42:28PM +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 12:16:11PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > From: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> > 
> > This is a partial forward-port of Peter Ziljstra's work first posted
> > at https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180530142236.667774973@infradead.org/.
> 
> It's patches 2 and 3 together, right?
> 
> > His Signed-off has been removed because it is modified but will be restored
> > if he says it's still ok.
> 
> I suppose the SoB will auto-magically re-appear if I apply it :-)
> 
> > The patch potentially matters when a socket was multiple LLCs as the
> > maximum search depth is lower. However, some of the test results were
> > suspiciously good (e.g. specjbb2005 gaining 50% on a Zen1 machine) and
> > other results were not dramatically different to other mcahines.
> > 
> > Given the nature of the patch, Peter's full series is not being forward
> > ported as each part should stand on its own. Preferably they would be
> > merged at different times to reduce the risk of false bisections.
> 
> I'm tempted to give it a go.. anyone object?
> 

Fwiw, I have some perf tests running on v1.  But I don't know if the
results will be in before I'm AFK next week. I suppose we could pull
it back out if something really bad comes up.

Seems like a reasonable change to me on the surface.


Cheers,
Phil
--