linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Rationalize sys_sched_rr_get

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, 12 Oct 2007 08:49:27 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>
Cc:	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	"Siddha\, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Rationalize sys_sched_rr_get_interval()

On 12-10-2007 00:23, Peter Williams wrote:
...
> The reason I was going that route was for modularity (which helps when 
> adding plugsched patches).  I'll submit a revised patch for consideration.
...

IMHO, it looks like modularity could suck here:

> +static unsigned int default_timeslice_fair(struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> +	return NS_TO_JIFFIES(sysctl_sched_min_granularity);
> +}

If it's needed for outside and sched_fair will use something else
(to avoid double conversion) this could be misleading. Shouldn't
this be kind of private and return something usable for the class
mainly? Why anything else than sched_fair should care about this?

Regards,
Jarek P.
-
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/