linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6 v5] sched: propagate load during synchronous attach/detach

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20161026111617.GF3102@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:16:17 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
        "linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6 v5] sched: propagate load during synchronous
 attach/detach

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 09:05:49AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >
> > The 'detach across' and 'attach across' in detach_task_cfs_rq() and
> > attach_entity_cfs_rq() do the same so couldn't you not create a
> > function propagate_foo() for it? This would avoid this ifdef as
> > well.
> >
> > You could further create in your '[PATCH 1/6 v5] sched: factorize attach entity':
> >
> > detach_entity_cfs_rq() {
> >   update_load_avg()
> >   detach_entity_load_avg()
> >   update_tg_load_avg()
> >   propagate_load_avg()
> > }
> >
> > and then we would have:
> >
> > attach_task_cfs_rq() -> attach_entity_cfs_rq() -> propagate_foo()
> > detach_task_cfs_rq() -> detach_entity_cfs_rq() -> propagate_foo()
> >
> > I guess you didn't because it would be only called one time but this
> > symmetric approaches are easier to remember (at least for me).
> 
> Yes i haven't created attach_entity_cfs_rq because it would be used only once.
> Regarding the creation of a propagate_foo function, i have just
> followed a similar skeleton as what is done in
> enqueue/dequeue_task_fair
> 
> I don't have strong opinion about creating this indirection for code
> readability. Others, have you got a preference ?

I think I agree with Dietmar. Duplicate code needs a helper function and
it would be nice to keep symmetry, even if there's only a single
call site.