linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v3 1/6] Track the active utilisation

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:   Fri, 18 Nov 2016 16:10:17 +0100
From:   luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
        Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 1/6] Track the active utilisation

On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:23:59 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:58:11AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> > I agree with Daniel, especially since I don't usually trust the
> > compiler. And the added variable is more of a distraction as it
> > doesn't seem to have any real purpose.  
> 
> I don't think there's anything here to trust the compiler on. Either
> it inlines or it doesn't, it should generate 'correct' code either
> way.
> 
> If it doesn't inline, its a dumb compiler and it will make these dumb
> decisions throughout the tree and your kernel will be slow, not my
> problem really ;-)
> 
> That said, I agree that the single line thing is actually easier to
> read.

Ok; I already made that change locally.


> 
> That said; there's something to be said for:
> 
> 	u64 running_bw;

Ok; I originally made it signed because I wanted the "running_bw < 0"
check, but I can change it to "dl_rq->running_bw > old" (I did not
think about it).

I'll make these changes locally ASAP.


			Thanks,
				Luca

> 
> static void add_running_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct
> dl_rq *dl_rq) {
> 	u64 old = dl_rq->running_bw;
> 
> 	dl_rq->running_bw += dl_se->dl_bw;
> 	SCHED_WARN_ON(dl_rq->running_bw < old); /* overflow */
> }
> 
> static void sub_running_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct
> dl_rq *dl_rq) {
> 	u64 old = dl_rq->running_bw;
> 
> 	dl_rq->running_bw -= dl_se->dl_bw;
> 	SCHED_WARN_ON(dl_rq->running_bw > old); /* underflow */
> }
> 
>