linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/30] PREEMPT_AUTO: support lazy rescheduling

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: <87ttm1frgf.fsf@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:16:49 -0800
From: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@....com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ankur Arora
 <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        paulmck@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...nel.org,
        bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com,
        mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        willy@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de, jpoimboe@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, jgross@...e.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
        bristot@...nel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        geert@...ux-m68k.org, glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de,
        anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com, mattst88@...il.com,
        krypton@...ich-teichert.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        David.Laight@...LAB.COM, richard@....at, mjguzik@...il.com,
        jon.grimm@....com, bharata@....com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
        konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/30] PREEMPT_AUTO: support lazy rescheduling


Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@....com> writes:

> On 2/21/2024 10:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 21 2024 at 17:53, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>> Configuration tested.
>>> a) Base kernel (6.7),
>> Which scheduling model is the baseline using?
>>
>
> baseline is also PREEMPT_DYNAMIC with voluntary preemption
>
>>> b) patched with PREEMPT_AUTO voluntary preemption.
>>> c) patched with PREEMPT_DYNAMIC voluntary preemption.
>>>
>>> Workloads I tested and their %gain,
>>>                      case b                   case c
>>> NAS                +2.7                    +1.9
>>> Hashjoin,          +0			     +0
>>> XSBench	     +1.7		     +0
>>> Graph500,  	     -6 		     +0
>> The Graph500 stands out. Needs some analysis.
>>
>
> Sure. Will do more detailed analysis and comeback on this.

Thanks Raghu. Please keep me posted.

Also, let me try to reproduce this locally. Could you post the
parameters that you used for the Graph500 run?

Thanks

--
ankur