linux-kernel - Re: [patch] restore sched_exec load balance heuristics

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: <49135873.7010309@nortel.com>
Date:	Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:49:55 -0600
From:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To:	Ken Chen <kenchen@...gle.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [patch] restore sched_exec load balance heuristics

Ken Chen wrote:

> There are two callers to sched_balance_self().  In the sched_fork
> path, sched_balance_self will balance the newly forked task.  I think
> it is OK to bounce a newly forked task to another CPU since current
> CPU will be busy when fork returns in the parent process.

What about vfork()?

> And if sched_balance_self() needs to different between fork / exec
> load balance, it has to check a flag from function argument, which I
> think it is better to just short circuit in sched_exec() directly.

 From a cleanliness perspective, it make more sense to me for the 
decision as to whether or not to balance to be done in the "balance" 
function, not the "exec" function.

Chris
--
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/