linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched: drop group_capacity to 1 only if local group has extra capacity

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]

Message-ID: <1287163490.1998.106.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 15 Oct 2010 19:24:50 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc:	Nikhil Rao <ncrao@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched: drop group_capacity to 1 only if local
 group has extra capacity

On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 10:13 -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 10:05 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > For regular balancing local_group will be the first, since we only
> > ascend the domain tree on the local groups. But its not true for no_hz
> > balancing afaikt.
> 
> Even for NOHZ, we always ascend each cpu's sched domain and the local
> group is the first one always. But yes, we are depending on the local
> group being the first group.

Ah, yes, we take the balance_cpu's domain tree, not the local cpu's
domain tee.

Hrm,.. ok feels slightly tricky though.
--
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/