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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:23:31 +0900 From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] sched: Improve cpu load accounting with nohz On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 04:56:36PM +0000, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > Another point ... 'active=1' (function header: @active: !0 for NOHZ_FULL > is a little bit misleading) is also true for when __update_cpu_load() is > called from update_cpu_load_active(). In this case tickless_load > wouldn't have to be set at all since pending_updates is 1, > decay_load_missed() can handle that by bailing in case missed_updates = 0. Hello Dietmar. > > Couldn't we set tickless_load only in case: > > unsigned long tickless_load = (active && pending_updates > 1) ? > this_rq->cpu_load[0] : 0; IMHO, this looks better even though it does not change much. Thank you, Byungchul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists