linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH]sched: convert wall-time to vruntime for check_preempt

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]

Date:	Fri, 08 Apr 2011 04:49:19 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Yan, Zheng Z" <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]sched: convert wall-time to vruntime for
 check_preempt_tick

On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 08:35 +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 21:34 +0800, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 20:43 +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > In check_preempt_tick(), delta is vruntime and ideal_runtime is wall runtime.
> > > Comparing vruntime and ideal_runtime looks buggy.
> > 
> > Why is that buggy?  It's a distance in units ns, ala wakeup_granularity,
> > a number.  This number just happens to be variable.
> vruntime is scaled wall-time. In all other places we do the scale from
> my understanding. I'm wondering why not do it here.

The purpose was to ensure that there is not too much spread, just like
wakeup preemption.  Using the number that determines tick induced spread
as the spread caliper seems perfectly fine to me.

	-Mike

--
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/