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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150908112244.GE3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:22:44 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc:	Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	yuyang.du@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: fix lose fair sleeper bonus in switch_to_fair()

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 06:17:49PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> even in this case, as i already said, place_entity() should be performed
> after restoring a normalized value to the meaningful original value.

> IMHO, it is wrong that se->vruntime is assigned with a bonused value
> unconditionally. when the task was detached, place_entity() made the
> entity have a bonused vruntime if it was eligible. if it was not
> eligible e.g. it had a too big vruntime before going to sleep, then
> we should not assign a bonused vruntime which is originally intended by
> place_entity().

Correct.
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ