linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 6/7] sched: Provide runnable_load_avg back to cfs

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: <20150726195634.GE28512@intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:56:34 +0800
From:	Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
To:	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pjt@...gle.com, bsegall@...gle.com,
	morten.rasmussen@....com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	dietmar.eggemann@....com, umgwanakikbuti@...il.com,
	len.brown@...el.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
	arjan@...ux.intel.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 6/7] sched: Provide runnable_load_avg back to cfs_rq

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:21:15AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Yuyang,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 02:43:25AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > Hi Boqun,
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:29:56PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > The point is that you have already tracked the sum of runnable_load_avg
> > > and blocked_load_avg in cfs_rq->avg.load_avg. If you're going to track
> > > part of the sum, you'd better track the one that's updated less
> > > frequently, right?
> > > 
> > > Anyway, this idea just comes into my mind. I wonder which is udpated
> > > less frequently myself too. ;-) So I ask to see whether there is
> > > something we can improve.
> > 
> > Actually, this is not the point.
> > 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 1) blocked load is more "difficult" to track, hint, migrate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

> > 2) r(t1) - b(t2) is not anything, hint, t1 != t2
> 
> Please consider this patch below, which is not tested yet, just for
> discussion. This patch is based on 1-5 in your patchset and going to
> replace patch 6. Hope this could make my point clear.
> 
> Thanks anyway for being patient with me ;-)
--
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/