linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] Use next_balance instead of last

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610261113180.18037@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc:	akpm@...l.org, Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Dave Chinner <dgc@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] Use next_balance instead of last_balance

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > Hmmmm... We change the point at which we calculate the interval relative to
> > load balancing. So move it after the load balance. This also avoids having
> > to do the calculation if the sched_domain has not expired.
> 
> That still doesn't take into account if the CPU goes idle/busy during
> the interval.

How does the current version take that into account? As far as I can tell 
we take the busy / idle stuation at the point in time when 
rebalance_tick() is called. We do not track whever the cpu gues idle/busy 
in the interval.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/