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, 10 Feb 2014 15:34:29 +0530 From: Preeti Murthy <preeti.lkml@...il.com> To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...nel.org, alex.shi@...aro.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>, Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] sched: Move idle_stamp up to the core Hi Daniel, On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote: > The idle_balance modifies the idle_stamp field of the rq, making this > information to be shared across core.c and fair.c. As we can know if the > cpu is going to idle or not with the previous patch, let's encapsulate the > idle_stamp information in core.c by moving it up to the caller. The > idle_balance function returns true in case a balancing occured and the cpu > won't be idle, false if no balance happened and the cpu is going idle. > > Cc: mingo@...nel.org > Cc: alex.shi@...aro.org > Cc: peterz@...radead.org > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> > --- > kernel/sched/core.c | 13 +++++++++++-- > kernel/sched/fair.c | 14 ++++++-------- > kernel/sched/sched.h | 8 +------- > 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > index 16b97dd..428ee4c 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > @@ -2704,8 +2704,17 @@ need_resched: > > pre_schedule(rq, prev); > > - if (unlikely(!rq->nr_running)) > - idle_balance(rq); > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > + if (unlikely(!rq->nr_running)) { > + /* > + * We must set idle_stamp _before_ calling idle_balance(), such > + * that we measure the duration of idle_balance() as idle time. Should not this be "such that we *do not* measure the duration of idle_balance() as idle time?" Thanks Regards Preeti U Murthy -- 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