linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] load-balancing and cpu

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]

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/