linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 01/10] sched/pelt: Move pelt related code in a dedicated file

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, 25 May 2018 19:04:55 +0100
From:   Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
To:     Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        Morten.Rasmussen@....com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
        valentin.schneider@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/10] sched/pelt: Move pelt related code in a
 dedicated file

On 25-May 15:26, Quentin Perret wrote:
> And also, I understand these functions are large, but if we _really_
> want to inline them even though they're big, why not putting them in
> sched-pelt.h ?

Had the same tought at first... but then I recalled that header is
generated from a script. Thus, eventually, it should be a different one.

> We probably wouldn't accept that for everything, but
> those PELT functions are used all over the place, including latency
> sensitive code paths (e.g. task wake-up).

We should better measure the overheads, if any, and check what
(a modern) compiler does. Maybe some hackbench run could help on the
first point.

> Thanks,
> Quentin

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi