linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12 v1] A new CPU load metric for power-efficient scheduler: CPU ConCurrency

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:	Thu, 15 May 2014 16:50:42 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
Cc:	mingo@...hat.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com, len.brown@...el.com,
	alan.cox@...el.com, mark.gross@...el.com, morten.rasmussen@....com,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, rajeev.d.muralidhar@...el.com,
	vishwesh.m.rudramuni@...el.com, nicole.chalhoub@...el.com,
	ajaya.durg@...el.com, harinarayanan.seshadri@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12 v1] A new CPU load metric for power-efficient
 scheduler: CPU ConCurrency

On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 02:46:37AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > The general code structure is an immediate no go. We're not going to
> > bolt on anything like this.
> 
> Could you please detail a little bit about general code structure?

So I should have just deleted all patches, for none of them has a
changelog.

So all this cc crap only hooks into and modifies fair.c behaviour. There
is absolutely no reason it should live anywhere else except fair.c

Secondly, the very last thing we need is more CONFIG_ goo, and you
sprinkle #ifdef around like it was gold dust.

Thirdly, wth is wrong with the current per-task runtime accounting and
why can't you extend/adapt that instead of duplicating the lot.

Fourthly, I'm _never_ going to merge anything that hijacks the load
balancer and does some random other thing. There's going to be a single
load-balancer full stop.

Many people have expressed interest in a packing balancer (vs the
spreading we currently default to). Some have even done patches.
At the same time it seems very difficult to agree on _when_ packing
makes sense. That said, when we do packing we should do it driven by the
topology and policy, not by some compile time option.

Lastly, if you'd done your homework and actually read some of the
threads on the subject from say the past two years, you'd know pretty
much all that already.

I'm not here to endlessly repeat myself and waste time staring at
unchangelogged patches.

Anyway, there might or might not be useful ideas in there.. but its very
hard to tell one way or another.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped