linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/13] RT: Cache cpus_allowed weight for optimizing migration

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1193196012.8343.48.camel@ghaskins-t60p.haskins.net>
Date:	Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:20:12 -0400
From:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To:	Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...eria.de>
Cc:	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] RT: Cache cpus_allowed weight for optimizing
	migration

On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 02:19 +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote:

> Why not make it a task flag, since according to your code, you are only 
> interested whether this is <= 1 or > 1. Since !(x <= 1) <=> (x > 1)
> for any given unsigned integer x, the required data structure is
> a "boolean" or a flag.

Hi Ingo,
  You are correct that the data is in fact interpreted as a boolean.  I
also had considered using a more boolean-like notation at one point.
However, I then figured I went through the expense of computing it, I
might as well store the actual value as an integer in case it can be
used in another way.  But to be honest, I cannot really think of any
other potential uses, so perhaps we would be best to follow your
suggestion.  It could always be changed if such a need ever arises.

Thank you for the feedback!

Regards,
-Greg

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)