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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 19:43:01 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: Move idle_balance() to post_schedule On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 17:54 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > There's no real reason that the idle_balance() needs to be called in > the > middle of schedule anyway. The only benefit is that if a task is > pulled > to this CPU, it can be scheduled without the need to schedule the idle > task. Uhm, istr that extra schedule being an issue somewhere.. Make very sure you don't regress anything silly like sysbench or hackbench. Maybe ask Mike, he seems to have a better retention for benchmark weirdness than me. > But load balancing and migrating the task makes a switch to idle > and back negligible. How does that follow? We can have to-idle switches _far_ more often than we balance. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists