linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] sched: fix wrong rq's runnable

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: <CAKfTPtCmARJS=VW52r43P_P+Dt5=dg_+5ochPcGZGH1b8bXGSw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 9 Apr 2013 16:05:07 +0200
From:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched: fix wrong rq's runnable_avg update with rt tasks

On 9 April 2013 15:16, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 14:18 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 9 April 2013 10:55, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 16:15 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> >> Changes since V2:
>> >> - remove useless definition for UP platform
>> >> - rebased on top of Steven Rostedt's patches :
>> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/12/558
>> >
>> > So what's the status of those patches? I still worry about the extra
>> > context switch overhead for the high-frequency idle scenario.
>>
>> I don't know. I have seen a pulled answer from Ingo but can't find the
>> commits in the tip tree.
>>
>> Steve, have you got more info about the status of your patches ?
>>
>
> Yeah, I asked Ingo to revert it due to Peter's concerns. I was able to
> get the latencies I needed without that patch set. That made it not so
> urgent.
>
> Can you rebase your patches doing something similar? That is, still use
> the pre/post_schedule_idle() calls, but don't base it off of my patch
> set.

Yes. I'm going to rebase my patches and add the declaration of
post_schedule_idle in my patch instead of using your patch

Thanks,
Vincent

>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Steve
>
>
--
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/