linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: terminate newidle balancing once at least one task has moved over

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: <200807091809.52293.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Wed, 9 Jul 2008 18:09:51 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	"Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, rostedt@...dmis.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	npiggin@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: terminate newidle balancing once at least one task has moved over

On Tuesday 08 July 2008 22:37, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at  1:00 AM, in message
>
> <200807081500.18245.nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, Nick Piggin
>
> <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
> > On Saturday 28 June 2008 06:29, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >> Inspired by Peter Zijlstra.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
> >
> > What happened to the feedback I sent about this?
> >
> > It is still nack from me.
>
> Ah yes.  Slipped through the cracks...sorry about that.
>
> What if we did "if (idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE && need_resched())" instead?

Isn't that exactly the same thing because any task will preempt the idle
thread?
--
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/