linux-kernel - SCHED: Is task migration necessary in sched

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b9df5fa10912230214s3815c023g2a7e7ca152eb00e4@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:14:27 +0600
From:	Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: SCHED: Is task migration necessary in sched_exec().

 Is task migration necessary in sched_exec()?

 In sched_exec function's comment it says:

 "sched_exec - execve() is a valuable balancing opportunity, because at
  this point the task has the smallest effective memory and cache footprint."

Right, but - when a execve() is called then this task will start execution (that
means this task will not waiting on the runqueue as TASK_RUNNING/WAKING,
it will get the CPU). At this point - what is the necessity to try
making it balance.
By looking at point of "smallest effective memory and cache footprint" , we are
missing the point that we are unnecessarily pushing task when its
about to execute.

Isn't it? Or I'm missing anything?

Rakib,
--
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/