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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 14:41:06 +0200 From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>, Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>, Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Scale wakeup granularity relative to nr_running On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 11:22, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote: > > On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 10:40 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > > a 100us value should even be enough to fix Mel's problem without > > impacting common wakeup preemption cases. > > It'd be nice if it turn out to be something that simple, but color me > skeptical. I've tried various preemption throttling schemes, and while Let's see what the results will show. I tend to agree that this will not be enough to cover all use cases and I don't see any other way to cover all cases than getting some inputs from the threads about their latency fairness which bring us back to some kind of latency niceness value > it was trivial to get promising results, my scheme always managed to > harm something. Everything I ever tried, I ended up tossing. > > -Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists