linux-kernel - Re: false nr_running check in load balance?

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:	Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:38:42 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Lei Wen <adrian.wenl@...il.com>
Cc:	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, leiwen@...vell.com
Subject: Re: false nr_running check in load balance?

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:45:12PM +0800, Lei Wen wrote:
> > Not quite right; I think you need busiest->cfs.h_nr_running.
> > cfs.nr_running is the number of entries running in this 'group'. If
> > you've got nested groups like:
> >
> >  'root'
> >    \
> >    'A'
> >    / \
> >   t1 t2
> >
> > root.nr_running := 1 'A', even though you've got multiple running tasks.
> >
> 
> You're absolutely right for this. :)
> I miss it for not considering the group case...
> 
> Then do you think it is necessary to do below change in load_balance() code?
>  -       if (busiest->nr_running > 1) {
>  +       if (busiest->cfs.h_nr_running > 1) {
> 

Yes I think that would be fine.
--
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/