linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] sched: Implement shared runqueue in CFS

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: <20231204193001.GA53255@maniforge>
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2023 13:30:01 -0600
From:   David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com, tj@...nel.org,
        roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, gautham.shenoy@....com,
        kprateek.nayak@....com, aaron.lu@...el.com,
        wuyun.abel@...edance.com, kernel-team@...a.com,
        aboorvad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, yu.c.chen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] sched: Implement shared runqueue in CFS

On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 05:12:11PM -0500, David Vernet wrote:
> Changes
> -------
> 
> This is v3 of the shared runqueue patchset. This patch set is based off
> of commit 88c56cfeaec4 ("sched/fair: Block nohz tick_stop when cfs
> bandwidth in use") on the sched/core branch of tip.git.
> 
> v1 (RFC): https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230613052004.2836135-1-void@manifault.com/
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230710200342.358255-1-void@manifault.com/

Hello everyone,

I wanted to give an update on this, as I've been promising a v4 of the
patch set for quite some time. I ran more experiments over the last few
weeks, and EEVDF has changed the performance profile of the SHARED_RUNQ
feature quite a bit compared to what we were observing with CFS. We may
pick this back up again at a later point, but for now we're going to
take a step back and re-evaluate.

Thanks,
David