linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] scheduler: cgroups cpuaccouting: Make cpuusage atomic

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, 19 May 2010 21:13:51 +0200
From:	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	mike@...roid.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	lizf@...fujitsu.com, menage@...gle.com,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] scheduler: cgroups cpuaccouting: Make cpuusage atomic

On Wednesday 19 May 2010 09:02:23 pm Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 20:58 +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > and avoid locking on 32 bit.
> > This resolves an ugly dependency in cgroups_cpuaccount.c
> > to per_cpu runqueues lock variable.
>
> While I totally agree with the sentiments here, atomic64_t isn't
> available on all 32bit archs and is _terribly_ expensive on ARCH=i386.
Speed on i386 shouldn't count that much here.
Big machines run x86_64 and cgroup cpu accounting doesn't make much
sense on old i386 single core machines.

Would still be great to see the first patch go in then.
The idea of splitting was to:
  a) show the real change
  b) make at least the first go in if the snd does not work out

Thanks,

     Thomas
--
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/