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: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:38:59 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, 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>, Lei Wen <leiwen@...vell.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] sched: Clean-up struct sd_lb_stat On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 03:09:38AM -0700, Paul Turner wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote: > > + struct sg_lb_stats *this, *busiest; > > "this" is a little confusing to read; mainly because elsewhere we've > tied this to "this cpu" whereas the local sched group is arger. (Not > to mention the obvious OOP-land overloading of "this->".) > > Perhaps %s/this/local/ for sg_lb_stat references? Including this_stat > -> local_stat on sd_lb_stats? fair enough, I'll edit the thing to be local. > > @@ -4952,15 +4950,16 @@ find_busiest_group(struct lb_env *env) > > * there is no imbalance between this and busiest group > > * wrt to idle cpu's, it is balanced. > > */ > > - if ((sds.this_idle_cpus <= sds.busiest_idle_cpus + 1) && > > - sds.busiest_nr_running <= sds.busiest_group_weight) > > + if ((this->idle_cpus <= busiest->idle_cpus + 1) && > > + busiest->sum_nr_running <= busiest->group_weight) > > While we're improving readability: idle_cpus < busiest->idle_cpus ? Right, took that. > This check has always been a little oddly asymmetric in that: > group_weight - sum_nr_running <= idle_cpus > > This allows the case where our group has pulled lots of work to one of > its cpus, but not yet spread that out, but still keep trying to > balance because idle_cpus is high. > > This is more food for thought since this patch is not changing functionality. Right, I saw the same and made a note to look at it later. I suppose later never happens though :/ -- 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