linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] sched: Clean up SD_BALANCE

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: <20160601231928.GC18670@intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 2 Jun 2016 07:19:28 +0800
From:	Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
To:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] sched: Clean up SD_BALANCE_WAKE flags in sched
 domain build-up

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 08:56:40AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Well, I won't argue that this hasn't changed, but I'd argue that this change
> > isn't a bad change: (a) it restores the flags to their meanings and makes them
> 
> Have you any proof that this change is not a bad thing ? Moreover have
> you got proof that it's a good thing ? Changing the meaning and the
> behavior of flags, just because you find it elegant, doesn't seem to
> be enough for me.
> 
> So if you just want to rename the flags please keep current behavior unchange

Interestingly, I don't disagree with what you said, it is not just a renaming,
so I said the following:
 
"(b) we definitely need further work to improve select_task_rq_fair()"

That said, the changed behavior should be addressed, the waker CPU should be
a valid candidate for all SD_BALANCE_*, and whatnot...