linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] sched: move h_load calculation to task_h

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <51E3C84A.5090403@parallels.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:00:42 +0400
From:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<devel@...nvz.org>, <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] sched: move h_load calculation to task_h_load

On 07/15/2013 12:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> OK, fair enough. It does somewhat rely on us getting the single
> rq->clock update thing right, but that should be ok.

Frankly, I doubt that rq->clock is the right thing to use here, because 
it can be updated very frequently under some conditions, so that 
cfs_rq->h_load can get updated several times during the same balance 
run. Perhaps, jiffies would suit better for that purpose. This would 
work as h_load update throttler similar to how it works now (I mean 
rq->h_load_throttle in update_h_load()).

If there is something else you don't like/have some thoughts on, please 
share - I'll try to improve.

Thank you for your feedback.

> But yeah, when you have stupid many cgroups we quickly need less h_load
> instances than there are cgroups.
--
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/