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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:42:33 -0800 From: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>, Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Pierre Bourdon <pbourdon@...ellency.fr>, Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Karl Rister <kmr@...ibm.com>, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Subject: Re: [tg_shares_up rewrite v3 09/11] sched: demand based update_cfs_load() On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote: >> On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 19:24 -0800, Paul Turner wrote: >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED >>> + cfs_rq->load_unacc_exec_time += delta_exec; >>> + if (cfs_rq->load_unacc_exec_time > sysctl_sched_shares_window) >>> { >>> + update_cfs_load(cfs_rq); >>> + update_cfs_shares(cfs_rq, 0); >> >> Why not: >> + cfs_rq->load_unacc_exec_time -= sysctl_sched_shares_window; >> >> (although you probably want to read the sysctl value into a local >> variable using ACCESS_ONCE() and use that for both cases). >> > > I think this is hard to do in a clean fashion (without a strange arg > to update_cfs_load). > > I'm also not sure it's worth synchronizing on a shares_window change > since, when we trigger an update from update_curr() is independent of > folding that time into the load average anyway. > (Note even: using sysctl_sched_shares_window is already a larger > window than update_cfs_load will normally fold at since we fold at > window/2 after the initial period, it just sets a grace period on > computation without updates in the busy case.) > Let me know if you still think this warrants any changes and I'll (fix accordingly) and repost with the "-p0" stripping fixed. >>> + } >>> +#endif >>> } >>> >>> static void update_curr(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq) >>> @@ -713,6 +724,7 @@ static void update_cfs_load(struct cfs_r >>> } >>> >>> cfs_rq->load_stamp = now; >>> + cfs_rq->load_unacc_exec_time = 0; >> >> and drop this one? >> > -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists