From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E081AC433F4 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:40:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3BE0214C2 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:40:30 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A3BE0214C2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=surriel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729947AbeIRUNW (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:13:22 -0400 Received: from shelob.surriel.com ([96.67.55.147]:41592 "EHLO shelob.surriel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729197AbeIRUNW (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:13:22 -0400 Received: from imladris.surriel.com ([96.67.55.152]) by shelob.surriel.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1g2HAr-0001f1-Vd; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:40:21 -0400 Message-ID: <1e3c2ab11320c1c2f320f9e24ac0d31625bd60e6.camel@surriel.com> Subject: Re: [RFC 00/60] Coscheduling for Linux From: Rik van Riel To: "Jan H." =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sch=F6nherr?= , Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Turner , Vincent Guittot , Morten Rasmussen , Tim Chen Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:40:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1d86f497-9fef-0b19-50d6-d46ef1c0bffa@amazon.de> References: <20180907214047.26914-1-jschoenh@amazon.de> <20180914111251.GC24106@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1d86f497-9fef-0b19-50d6-d46ef1c0bffa@amazon.de> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-K5YcfEiG96vCjA3wYFT9" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-1.fc28) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-K5YcfEiG96vCjA3wYFT9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 18:25 +0200, Jan H. Sch=C3=B6nherr wrote: > On 09/14/2018 01:12 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 11:39:47PM +0200, Jan H. Sch=C3=B6nherr wrote: > > >=20 > > > B) Why would I want this? > > > In the L1TF context, it prevents other applications from > > > loading > > > additional data into the L1 cache, while one application tries > > > to leak > > > data. > >=20 > > That is the whole and only reason you did this; >=20 > It really isn't. But as your mind seems made up, I'm not going to > bother > to argue. What are the other use cases, and what kind of performance numbers do you have to show examples of workloads where coscheduling provides a performance benefit? --=20 All Rights Reversed. --=-K5YcfEiG96vCjA3wYFT9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCAAdFiEEKR73pCCtJ5Xj3yADznnekoTE3oMFAluhDlUACgkQznnekoTE 3oP3cwf7B7g/aayyrfSwUnziwRifp9BU+EM2IVUSW5m0vioYVjkr3zt2D00aAiYQ v8gI9K/9tenserR1I+Gt1f6XHbp/Ht1aaRhmPVqSMk6TJoKHcZNkfihZZwnFoKpf NoKXaEnNVqgSKn5ZD6n6ZQ8c/PYTkBRmu/qoco6KvThNwDbruTKWCuRHfti7ktV4 qqr854sWzQ19C+9qsujQ8C1xoZhGn6I3YKyHG79KUKo8zsrWjvFVuHrmtmJawdww GdPzKnwXlBC3wUW9LAuFwhZIZr4S+gDhZ5i/5xtI40wISZS5vV6gFIQzIhJZh4BO tXnvBDms5QRy2PaSTJ1r/s4yz6b6RQ== =PtBi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-K5YcfEiG96vCjA3wYFT9--