linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] sched: balance_cpu to consider other cpus in its group as target of (pinned) 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]

Message-ID: <1340267659.21745.157.camel@twins>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:34:19 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Prashanth Nageshappa <prashanth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	mingo@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	roland@...nel.org, efault@....de, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched: balance_cpu to consider other cpus in its
 group as target of (pinned) task

On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 09:10 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:

> Hmm ..I can see loop_break being incremented here:
> 
>                 /* take a breather every nr_migrate tasks */
>                 if (env->loop > env->loop_break) {
>                         env->loop_break += sched_nr_migrate_break;
>                         env->flags |= LBF_NEED_BREAK;
>                         goto out;
>                 }
> 
> As a result, when we redo with a different src_cpu, both loop and
> loop_break could be at non-default values.  Am I missing something here?

D'0h right you are.. /me quickly edits patch again.

I thought I removed all that, guess I didn't.
--
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/