linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] sched: factor out code to should_we

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]

Date:	Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:45:14 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] sched: factor out code to should_we_balance()

On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 16:58 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> There is not enough reason to place this checking at
> update_sg_lb_stats(),
> except saving one iteration for sched_group_cpus. But with this
> change,
> we can save two memset cost and can expect better compiler
> optimization,
> so clean-up may be more beneficial to us.

It would be good if you'd described what you actually did, there's a
lot of code movement and now I have to figure out wth you did and why.

--
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/