linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue

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:   Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:15:57 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
        Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:29:57PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct, at 01:10:17PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > I'm entirely lost as to which patch we're talking about by now ;-)
> 
> Heh, this one from Vincent,
> 
>   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161010173440.GA28945@linaro.org

Ah, right.

Seems like a sensible thing to do, and I suppose I should go finish my
(and yours) update_rq_clock() patches that supersede the patch referred
to in that thing and is depended upon.

It might make sense to have helper functions to evaluate those
conditions, because currently there's two instances of each, once in the
branch selection and then again (but inverted, we miss the == case fwiw)
in the return NULL case.