linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Wholesale removal of sd

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 Feb 2011 12:43:55 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
Cc:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Wholesale removal of sd_idle logic

On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 14:38 -0800, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
> 
> The initial patch here - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/532501/
> applies cleanly over the below change and provides a micro-optimization
> for a specific case, where an idle core can pull tasks instead of a
> core with one thread being idle and other thread being busy.
> It will be good to get some data on whether this micro-optimization
> matters or not. 

I would much rather see a solution that solves that problem for the more
generic situation where we lower capacity to 1.

The whole double-balance thing is fairly inherent in the whole design,
and making an exception for just one special case doesn't look right.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/