linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Care divide error in update_task_scan

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]

Message-ID: <20141008165402.GO10832@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 8 Oct 2014 18:54:02 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tkhai@...dex.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Care divide error in
 update_task_scan_period()

On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 12:42:24PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 10/08/2014 02:43 AM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> 
> >   The divide error is rare case because the trigger is node offline.
> >   By this patch, when both of private and shared are set to 0, diff
> >   is just set to 0, not calculating the division.
> 
> How about a simple
> 
>     if (private + shared) == 0)
>           return;
> 
> higher up in the function, to avoid adding an extra
> layer of indentation and confusion to the main part
> of the function?

At which point we'll have 3 different return semantics. Should we not
clear numa_faults_localityp[], even in this case?
--
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/