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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 5 Oct 2021 10:12:12 -0400
From:   Phil Auld <>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <>,
        Mike Galbraith <>,
        Mel Gorman <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Valentin Schneider <>,
        Aubrey Li <>,
        Barry Song <>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <>,
        LKML <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Scale wakeup granularity relative to

On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 12:36:22PM +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 08:24:03AM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:
> > It's capped at 8 cpus, which is pretty easy to reach these days, so the
> > values don't get too large.  That scaling is almost a no-op these days.
> Ooh, hey, we already fixed that :-)

Thanks Peter.

I'm always a little behind upstream (nature of the job :)

That link leads to a message Id not found. But from what I can see the
code that takes the min of online cpus and 8 is still present. 

> So the reasoning there is that if the values get too big, interactiviy
> get *really* bad, but if you go from say 1 to 4 CPUs, interactivity can
> improve due to being able to run on other CPUs.
> At 8 CPUs we end up at 6ms*4=24ms, which is already pretty terrible.

And actually you mention the same thing later on.  Most systems, even
desktops, have 8+ cpus these days so the scaling is mostly not doing
anything except multiplying by 4, right? So no-op was not the right
way to describe it maybe. But it's not getting bigger with larger
numbers of cpus beyond a pretty commonly reached limit.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists