Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 02:17:12 -0800 From: Harrison Grundy <harrison.grundy@astrodoggroup.com> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: locks and kernel randomness... Message-ID: <54EDA128.4000107@astrodoggroup.com> In-Reply-To: <20150225100512.GC74514@kib.kiev.ua> References: <20150224182507.GI46794@funkthat.com> <54ECEA43.2080008@freebsd.org> <20150224231921.GQ46794@funkthat.com> <1424822522.1328.11.camel@freebsd.org> <20150225002956.GT46794@funkthat.com> <2F49527F-2F58-4BD2-B8BE-1B1190CCD4D0@bsdimp.com> <54ED5656.50607@astrodoggroup.com> <20150225090638.GB74514@kib.kiev.ua> <54ED92E5.4010803@astrodoggroup.com> <54ED9A4B.4060802@astrodoggroup.com> <20150225100512.GC74514@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/25/15 02:05, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 01:47:55AM -0800, Harrison Grundy wrote: >> Three choices here are attached here: >> >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197922 >> >> The only remaining one I don't have a patch for is putting a >> "real" PRNG in ULE. >> >> At this point, as far as ULE goes, It just comes down to picking >> from one of those approaches. > > The third patch, ' Creates sched_random, using the system used in > cpu_search.', seems to miss updating the dpcpu randomval in > sched_random(), isn't it ? > It does exactly what cpu_search does. I really think the scheduler does not actually need randomness in these locations. I've been running for the past few days on a few systems here that way for testing purposes without issue. I'll post a separate call for testers for a patch that overtly removes them. ULE has a ton of different methods for balancing load between cores (which is why you can turn off the long term balancer entirely). --- Harrison
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54EDA128.4000107>