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]

Date:	Thu, 9 Oct 2014 14:19:14 +0900
From:	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Care divide error in update_task_scan_period()

(2014/10/09 1:54), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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?
>

I'm not familiar with Numa balancing feature. So I want to know it too.
If it's not necessary to clear numa_faults_locality[], I'll apply the idea.

Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu

--
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/