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: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:17:13 +0100 From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> To: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, alex.shi@...el.com, Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>, "Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] sched: simplify the select_task_rq_fair() On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 14:42 +0800, Michael Wang wrote: > So this is trying to take care the condition when curr_cpu(local) and > prev_cpu(remote) are on different nodes, which in the old world, > wake_affine() won't be invoked, correct? It'll be called any time this_cpu and prev_cpu aren't one and the same. It'd be pretty silly to asking whether to pull_here or leave_there when here and there are identical. > Hmm...I think this maybe a good additional checking before enter balance > path, but I could not estimate the cost to record the relationship at > this moment of time... It'd be pretty cheap, but I'd hate adding any cycles to the fast path unless those cycles have one hell of a good payoff, so the caching would have to show most excellent cold hard numbers (talk crazy ideas walk;). -Mike -- 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