| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090902105745.GA3817@in.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:27:45 +0530 From: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] load-balancing and cpu_power -v2 On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 10:34:31AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > A more complete version, one that compiles and mostly works on the > simple tests to which it was subjected. Very nice series. Will queue it up for testing to see if anything obvious breaks. > > It still lacks integration with APERF/MPERF because that stuff was > hidding in some acpi driver instead of placed in arch code for general > consumption.. will fix. > > Also, SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER seems redundant in the face of sd->level == > SD_LV_SIBLING, should we remove the SD_flag or depricate the level? IIRC, the only place where we used SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER was while assigning the cpu_power. With the arch_smt_gain() coming into picture, I feel we can remove the SD_flag. Not sure what you meant by deprecating the level. > > Anyway, have at it, poke holes and report issues. -- Thanks and Regards gautham -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists