linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched, balancing: Update rq->max_idle_balance_cost whenever newidle balance is attempted

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:	Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:42:52 -0700
From:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
	alex.shi@...aro.org, efault@....de, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	morten.rasmussen@....com, aswin@...com, chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched, balancing: Update rq->max_idle_balance_cost
 whenever newidle balance is attempted

On Sat, 2014-04-26 at 16:50 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:54:14PM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > Preeti mentioned that sd->balance_interval is changed during load_balance().
> > Should we also consider updating the interval in rebalance_domains() after
> > calling load_balance(),
> 
> Yeah, that might make sense.
> 
> > and also taking max_load_balance_interval into account
> > in the updates for next_balance in idle_balance()?
> 
> I was thinking that max_load_balance_interval thing was mostly about the
> *busy_factor thing, but sure, can't hurt to be consistent and always do
> it.
> 
> > If so, how about the something like the below change which also introduces
> > get_sd_balance_interval() to obtain the sd's balance interval, and have both
> > update_next_balance() and rebalance_domains() use that function.
> 
> Yes, that looks good.
> 
> Can you send it with a proper changelog?

Sure, I'll send a v2 patchset so that this applies with the other
patches. I also think it would be beneficial to split this change into 2
patches (the 1st patch fixes commit e5fc6611, and the 2nd patch changes
how next_balance gets updated).

--
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/