linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET v1 wq/for-6.5] workqueue: Improve unbound workqueue execution locality

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, 21 Jun 2023 12:31:45 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Pin-yen Lin <treapking@...omium.org>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com,
        joshdon@...gle.com, brho@...gle.com, nhuck@...gle.com,
        agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...nel.org, void@...ifault.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v1 wq/for-6.5] workqueue: Improve unbound workqueue
 execution locality

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 at 12:16, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> I find that perplexing given that switching to a per-cpu workqueue remedies
> the situation quite a bit, which is how this patchset came to be. #3 is the
> same as per-cpu workqueue, so if you're seeing noticeably different
> performance numbers between #3 and per-cpu workqueue, there's something
> wrong with either the code or test setup.

Or maybe there's some silly thinko in the wq code that is hidden by
the percpu code.

For example, WQ_UNBOUND triggers a lot of other overhead at least on
wq allocation and free. Maybe some of that stuff then indirectly
affects workqueue execution even when strict cpu affinity is set.

Pin-Yen Li - can you do a system-wide profile of the two cases (the
percpu case vs the "strict cpu affinity" one), to see if something
stands out?

             Linus