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:   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