linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2] sched: reflect sched_entity movement into task

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:	Wed, 1 Jun 2016 20:45:27 +0100
From:	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pjt@...gle.com,
	yuyang.du@...el.com, bsegall@...gle.com, Morten.Rasmussen@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] sched: reflect sched_entity movement into
 task_group's utilization

On 01/06/16 13:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:57:32AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Ensure that the changes of the utilization of a sched_entity will be
>> reflected in the task_group hierarchy.
>>
>> This patch tries another way than the flat utilization hierarchy proposal
>> to ensure the changes will be propagated down to the root cfs.

IMHO, the 'flat utilization hierarchy' discussion started here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/1/514

In the meantime I continued to play with the idea of a flat utilization
hierarchy based on the exiting PELT code. I just sent out the RFC patch
set for people to compare with Vincent's approach.

> Which would be:
> 
>  lkml.kernel.org/r/1460327765-18024-5-git-send-email-yuyang.du@...el.com
> 
> Right? Yuyang, there were some issues with the patches leading up to
> that proposal, were you going to update the flat util thing without
> those patches or can you find yourself in Vince's patches?

I think Yuyang dropped the 'flat utilization hierarchy' in
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/28/270

> (just so I can get a picture of what all patches to look at when
> reviewing)