linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: fix conflict of schedule domain balance in RT scheduling

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: <1307015789.2497.640.camel@laptop>
Date:	Thu, 02 Jun 2011 13:56:29 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: fix conflict of schedule domain balance in RT
 scheduling

On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 21:58 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> SD_BALANCE_WAKE and SD_WAKE_AFFINE are defined to be mutually
> exclusive

Uhm, no they're not.. both affect placement of a woken task but they're
complementary. WAKE_AFFINE is a check to see if it makes sense to run
the woken task on the same cpu as the wakee, BALANCE_WAKE does a full
load-balance pass, in case its combined with WAKE_AFFINE it does so in
case that test is negative.



--
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/