linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Consider cpu affinity when allowing NUMA imbalance in find_idlest

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:   Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:46:25 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
Cc:     aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com, efault@....de, gautham.shenoy@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        mingo@...nel.org, song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com,
        srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, valentin.schneider@....com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Consider cpu affinity when allowing NUMA
 imbalance in find_idlest_group

On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 09:29:21PM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> Neither the sched/tip nor Mel's v5 patchset [1] provides an optimal
> new-task wakeup strategy when the tasks are affined to a subset of cpus
> which can result in piling of tasks on the same set of CPU in a NUMA
> group despite there being other cpus in a different NUMA group where the
> task could have run in. 

Where does this affinity come from?