linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] sched/fair: rework load

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:   Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:31:23 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] sched/fair: rework load_balance

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 04:02:15PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 at 14:54, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 09:58:23AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:

> > > -void fix_small_imbalance(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sds)

> > Maybe strip this out first, in a separate patch. It's all magic doo-doo.
> 
> If I remove that 1st, we will have commit in the branch that might
> regress some performance temporarily and bisect might spot it while
> looking for a culprit, isn't it ?

Maybe; but at least for review it is much better to not have it all
squashed in one patch.