linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/9] sched: Extend scheduler's asym packing

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: <1477505446.2680.29.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:10:46 -0700
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     rjw@...ysocki.net, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...e.de, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, jolsa@...hat.com,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/9] sched: Extend scheduler's asym packing

On Wed, 2016-10-26 at 12:27 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Tim Chen wrote:
> 
> > 
> > We generalize the scheduler's asym packing to provide an ordering
> > of the cpu beyond just the cpu number.  This allows the use of the
> > ASYM_PACKING scheduler machinery to move loads to preferred CPU in a
> > sched domain. The preference is defined with the cpu priority
> > given by arch_asym_cpu_priority(cpu).
> > 
> > We also record the most preferred cpu in a sched group when
> > we build the cpu's capacity for fast lookup of preferred cpu
> > during load balancing.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
> This SOB-chain is bogus. Same for all other patches.
> 

I am the primary author of the patch so I have my sign-off on top.  There
were also much internal discussions/reviews between myself, Peter and Srinivas,
before we post the first version of this patch.
I incorporated their inputs into the patch and added their sign-offs.  

Can you be more explicit on why you think the sign-offs here are bogus?

Thanks.

Tim