linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] sched, fair: Let minimally loaded cpu balance the group

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: <1336089945.28674.460.camel@sbsiddha-desk.sc.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 03 May 2012 17:05:45 -0700
From:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, mingo@...nel.org,
	pjt@...gle.com, efault@....de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] sched, fair: Let minimally loaded cpu balance
 the group

On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 16:04 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> [2012-05-02 12:31:30]:
> 
> > > IOW :
> > > 
> > > 		balance_load = 0 iff idle_cpu(i) ??
> > 
> > I think so, even for !0 load_idx, load will only reach zero when we're
> > idle, just takes longer.
> 
> Right ...so should we force it to select a idle_cpu by having
> balance_load = 0 for a idle cpu (ignoring what target_load(i, load_idx)
> told us as its load?

I think Peter is trying to find the leastly loaded among idle cpu's (in
other words the longest idle cpu ;)

should be ok, isn't it?

thanks,
suresh



--
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/