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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 10:38:08 +0900 From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com> Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, juri.lelli@...il.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bristot@...hat.com, kernel-team@....com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] sched/deadline: Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:13:36PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > @@ -1367,6 +1364,7 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task) > > rcu_read_lock(); > > for_each_domain(cpu, sd) { > > if (sd->flags & SD_WAKE_AFFINE) { Hi, > This is orthogonal to the proposed change, but I'm wondering if it make > sense to do the following only for SD_WAKE_AFFINE domains. The Actually I also wonder it.. > consideration applies to RT as well, actually. Also, find_later_rq gets > called when trying to push tasks away as well and in that case checking > for this flag seems inappropriate? Peter, Steve? > > Thanks, > > - Juri
Powered by blists - more mailing lists