linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/8] sched: clean up move_task() and move_one

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: <CAAmzW4OKTxSCFFCOA=YKSwV_qQjxMb6z6ThELp=w9J2bBG4ObQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:42:52 +0900
From:	JoonSoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] sched: clean up move_task() and move_one_task()

2013/3/20 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>:
> On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 16:33 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
>> > Right, so I'm not so taken with this one. The whole load stuff really
>> > is a balance heuristic that's part of move_tasks(), move_one_task()
>> > really doesn't care about that.
>> >
>> > So why did you include it? Purely so you didn't have to re-order the
>> > tests? I don't see any reason not to flip a tests around.
>>
>> I think that I'm not fully understand what you are concerning, because of
>> my poor English. If possible, please elaborate on a problem in more detail.
>
> OK, so your initial Changelog said it wanted to remove some code
> duplication between move_tasks() and move_one_task(); but then you put
> in the load heuristics and add a boolean argument to only enable those
> for move_tasks() -- so clearly that wasn't duplicated.
>
> So why move that code.. I proposed that this was due a reluctance to
> re-arrange the various tests that stop the migration from happening.
>
> Now you say:
>
>> ... Just moving up can_migrate_task() above
>> load evaluation code may raise side effect, because can_migrate_task() have
>> other checking which is 'cache hottness'. I don't want a side effect. So
>> embedding load evaluation to can_migrate_task() and re-order checking and
>> makes load evaluation disabled for move_one_task().
>
> Which pretty much affirms this. However I also said that I don't think
> the order really matters that much; each test will cancel the migration
> of this task; the order of these tests seem immaterial.
>
>> If your recommandation is to move up can_mirate_task() above
>> load evaluation code, yes, I can, and will do that. :)
>
> I would actually propose moving the throttled test into
> can_migrate_task() and leave it at that.

Okay. I will do that in next spin.

Thanks!!

>
> --
> 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/
--
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/