linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: update scale invariance of PELT

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, 14 Apr 2017 10:47:28 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
        Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: update scale invariance of PELT

On 13 April 2017 at 20:06, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 04:59:15PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 13 April 2017 at 15:32, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 01:28:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >
>> >> I still wonder about the whole !running vs !weight thing.,
>> >
>> > Ah, since we use this for both util _and_ load, we need !running &&
>> > !weight, and it so happens that !weight implies !running. Is that it?
>>
>> exactly
>> sorry, I should have started with that
>
> Damn, that just bring me around to wondering why running is the right
> condition to create lost-time.
>
> Because for runnable we want everything that has weight.

I have considered that the waiting time doesn't have to be scaled
unlike the running time of the runnable because waiting is the same
whatever the current capacity

>