linux-kernel - Re: [patch] sched: decrease number of load balances

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611201625240.23868@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:39:03 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
cc:	mingo@...e.hu, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, akpm@...l.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kenneth.w.chen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: decrease number of load balances

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:

> +		if (local_group && balance_cpu != this_cpu && balance) {
								^^^^^

This would need to be *balance right? balance is always != 0.

> +			*balance = 0;
> +			goto ret;
> +		}

How well was this patch tested?

We already have idle processors pulling processes from elsewhere in the 
system. Load balancing on an idle processor could only replicate the 
balance on idle logic.


-
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/