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]
Date:	Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:20:21 +0200
From:	Vincent Guittot <>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <>,
	linux-kernel <>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <>,
	LAK <>,
	Preeti U Murthy <>,
	Morten Rasmussen <>,
	Mike Galbraith <>,
	Nicolas Pitre <>,
	"" <>,
	Daniel Lezcano <>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/12] Revert "sched: Put rq's sched_avg under CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED"

On 11 July 2014 22:12, Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 07:39:29PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> In my mind, arch_scale_cpu_freq was intend to scale the capacity of
>> the CPU according to the current dvfs operating point.
>> As it's no more use anywhere now that we have arch_scale_cpu, we could
>> probably remove it .. and see when it will become used.
> I probably should have written comments when I wrote that code, but it
> was meant to be used only where, as described above, we limit things.
> Ondemand and such, which will temporarily decrease freq, will ramp it up
> again at demand, and therefore lowering the capacity will skew things.
> You'll put less load on because its run slower, and then you'll run it
> slower because there's less load on -> cyclic FAIL.
>> > In that same discussion ISTR a suggestion about adding avg_running time,
>> > as opposed to the current avg_runnable. The sum of avg_running should be
>> > much more accurate, and still react correctly to migrations.
>> I haven't look in details but I agree that avg_running would be much
>> more accurate than avg_runnable and should probably fit the
>> requirement. Does it means that we could re-add the avg_running (or
>> something similar) that has disappeared during the review of load avg
>> tracking patchset ?
> Sure, I think we killed it there because there wasn't an actual use for
> it and I'm always in favour of stripping everything to their bare bones,
> esp big and complex things.
> And then later, add things back once we have need for it.

Ok, i'm going to look how to add it back taking nto account current
Yuyang's rework of load_avg

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to
> More majordomo info at
> Please read the FAQ at
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists