linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Introduce sched_entity::dont

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: <20160620155929.GA10167@krava>
Date:	Mon, 20 Jun 2016 17:59:29 +0200
From:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	James Hartsock <hartsjc@...hat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Introduce sched_entity::dont_balance

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 04:28:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:15:11PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > Adding dont_balance bool into struct sched_entity,
> > to mark tasks which are rebalanced based on affinity.
> > 
> > It's used only when REBALANCE_AFFINITY feature is
> > switched on. The code functionality of this feature
> > is introduced in following patch.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/sched.h   |  2 ++
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c     | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
> >  kernel/sched/features.h |  1 +
> >  3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> > index dee41bf59e6b..0e6ac882283b 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> > @@ -1331,6 +1331,8 @@ struct sched_entity {
> >  
> >  	u64			nr_migrations;
> >  
> > +	bool			dont_balance;
> 
> Never use bool in structures.

ok, but I couldn't find anything real sinister about that..
so why is that? ;-)

thanks,
jirka