linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: Add aggressive load balancing for certain situations

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:	Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:48:15 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: Add aggressive load balancing for certain
 situations

On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 09:01 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > index 4e777b4..fe9b95b 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > @@ -1246,7 +1246,7 @@ static int wake_affine(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int sync)
> >   */
> >  static struct sched_group *
> >  find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
> > -               int this_cpu, int load_idx)
> > +               int this_cpu, int load_idx, int agressive)
> >  {
> 
> can't we fold that into load_idx? like -1 or something?

A better alternative might be passing imbalance along instead.

--
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/