linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 04/10] sched: Change pick_next_task

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:	Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:07:29 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 04/10] sched: Change pick_next_task_rt from
 unlikely to likely

On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 19:46 -0700, Gregory Haskins wrote:

> My feeling is that generally speaking, if the branch is workload dependent, we should probably not annotate it at all and let the CPUs branch-predictor do its thing.  I guess what I am not 100% clear on is how these annotations affect the BPU.  I.e. is it a static decision point or can the BPU still "learn" if the annotation is particularly wrong for a given workload?  For the former, I think we should just remove this particular annotation (and there are others that need review).  For the latter, this is obviously the right annotation we should be using in this particular case.
> 

You need to get a better email client ;-)

OK, if I just remove the likely() do you Ack it?

-- Steve


--
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/