linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch v3 01/20] sched: Cache aware load-balancing

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: <bef73a72-a75d-4c10-9b60-ff16990a682e@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 14:24:40 +0530
From: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, "Chen, Yu C" <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Vincent Guittot
 <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Libo Chen <libo.chen@...cle.com>, Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>,
        Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
        "Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch v3 01/20] sched: Cache aware load-balancing



On 7/4/25 14:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 04:40:39PM +0800, Chen, Yu C wrote:
> 
>>>> @@ -953,6 +953,10 @@ config NUMA_BALANCING
>>>> ?????????????? This system will be inactive on UMA systems.
>>>> +config SCHED_CACHE
>>>> +?????? bool "Cache aware scheduler"
>>>> +?????? default y
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Should it depend on EXPERT?
>>> IMO this could add quite a bit of overhead and maybe n by default?
>>>
>>
>> I would leave this to Peter and Tim to decide.
> 
> Runtime controls are always better than compile time. Distros will have
> no choice but to enable the config option.
> 
> But that is not the kind of thing you start a series with. First
> versions didn't even have the config option. First you make it work,
> then later you worry about silly detail.
> 

Ok Makes sense.