linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: ondemand ignore_nice

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: <1312884759.22367.64.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 09 Aug 2011 12:12:39 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	joni@...de-fx.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	"Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: ondemand ignore_nice_level

How very good of you to CC all the relevant maintainers..

On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 22:41 +0300, joni@...de-fx.com wrote:
> @@ -3755,7 +3755,7 @@ unsigned long long thread_group_sched_runtime(struct task_struct *p)
>   * @cputime_scaled: cputime scaled by cpu frequency
>   */
>  void account_user_time(struct task_struct *p, cputime_t cputime,
> -                      cputime_t cputime_scaled)
> +               cputime_t cputime_scaled)
>  {
>         struct cpu_usage_stat *cpustat = &kstat_this_cpu.cpustat;
>         cputime64_t tmp;

I'm very sure the old alignment was preferred.

> @@ -3769,9 +3769,11 @@ void account_user_time(struct task_struct *p, cputime_t cputime,
>         tmp = cputime_to_cputime64(cputime);
>         if (TASK_NICE(p) > 0)
>                 cpustat->nice = cputime64_add(cpustat->nice, tmp);
> -       else
> +       else 
>                 cpustat->user = cputime64_add(cpustat->user, tmp);
>  
> +       cpustat->nicevalue[TASK_USER_PRIO(p)] = cputime64_add(cpustat->nicevalue[TASK_USER_PRIO(p)], tmp);
> +
>         cpuacct_update_stats(p, CPUACCT_STAT_USER, cputime);
>         /* Account for user time used */
>         acct_update_integrals(p); 

Yay! more senseless accounting.. we really need more of that. What's
even better is your data array being 320 bytes spanning 5 cachelines,
and thus the above almost guarantees a cacheline miss.

All round good stuff, and as DaveJ already pointed out, all without any
justification what so ever.

--
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/