linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched: Optimize tick periodic cpu load updates

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:	Sat, 2 Apr 2016 09:23:37 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched: Optimize tick periodic cpu load updates

On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 03:23:06PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Don't bother with the whole pending tickless cpu load machinery if
> we run a tick periodic kernel. That's less job for the CPU on ticks.

Again, the changelog really could use help. Is this a pure optimization
patch? If so, do you have numbers?

> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -585,8 +585,10 @@ struct rq {
>  #endif
>  	#define CPU_LOAD_IDX_MAX 5
>  	unsigned long cpu_load[CPU_LOAD_IDX_MAX];
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> +# ifdef CONFIG_SMP

I'm not a fan of this #ifdef indenting and nothing near there uses this
style, so please don't introduce it here.

>  	unsigned long last_load_update_tick;
> -#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> +# endif
>  	u64 nohz_stamp;
>  	unsigned long nohz_flags;
>  #endif
> -- 
> 2.7.0
>