linux-kernel - Re: [RFC,v2 2/3] sched: set number of iterations to h_nr

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]

Date:   Thu, 9 Feb 2017 19:59:24 +0100
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Uladzislau 2 Rezki <uladzislau2.rezki@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC,v2 2/3] sched: set number of iterations to h_nr_running

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 09:43:28AM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
>> From: Uladzislau 2 Rezki <uladzislau2.rezki@...ymobile.com>
>>
>> It is possible that busiest run queue has multiple RT tasks,
>> whereas no CFS tasks, that is why it is reasonable to use
>> h_nr_running instead, because a load balance only applies
>> for CFS related tasks.
>

>
> Sure, I suppose that makes sense, but then it would make even more sense
> to do a more thorough audit of the code and make sure all remaining
> rq::nr_running uses are correct.
>
Indeed. I did not want to touch othe places, due to my specific test case.
There are still a few raming places. I can prepare a new patch that covers
all of them if that is ok.

-- 
Uladzislau Rezki