linux-kernel - Re: modifying CFS failure

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: <1208002923.7427.5.camel@twins>
Date:	Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:22:03 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	cs044024@...it.ac.in
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: modifying CFS failure

Please provide it as a series of patches against sched-devel/latest.

Just plain AVL code and a huge modified CFS backport make it impossible
to tell what changed and why.

Which brings us to the question: _why_. That is, why are you trying to
replace the rb-tree with an avl tree? Just because the worst case depth
of the avl is slightly better than for an rb-tree, which can be offset
by the slightl more expesive balance operations.

I'm glad people are working on CFS - its an interesting piece of the
kernel after all, but provide it in a regular patch series, this is
impossible to work with, sorry.

--
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/