linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/19] sched/numa: Evaluate move once per node

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:   Mon, 4 Jun 2018 08:45:20 -0700
From:   Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/19] sched/numa: Evaluate move once per node

* Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com> [2018-06-04 10:51:27]:

> On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 15:30 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> 
> 
> Just bike shedding, but it may be easier to read
> if the "we found our destination" check were written
> more explicitly:
> 
> 
> 	if (!cur) {
> 		if (move && imp > env->best_imp)
> 			gote assign;
> 		else
> 			goto unlock;
> 	}
> 

will incorporate this.


> Also, the "move" variable seems to indicate that
> the NUMA code may move the task, but not a decision
> that moving the task is better than a swap.
> 
> Would it make sense to call it "maymove"?

Okay, will incorporate this too.

> 
> I like how this patch simplifies the code a little.
> 

Thanks.