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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:56:07 -0800 From: Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com> To: Brendan Jackman <brendan.jackman@....com> Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: force update of blocked load of idle cpus > @@ -8683,6 +8692,10 @@ static void nohz_balancer_kick(void) > > if (test_and_set_bit(NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK, nohz_flags(ilb_cpu))) > return; > + > + if (only_update) > + set_bit(NOHZ_STATS_KICK, nohz_flags(ilb_cpu)); Should there be an "else clear_bit(NOHZ_STATS_KICK, nohz_flags(ilb_cpu));" ? Seems like any time this is called as !only_update, we should stop inhibiting rebalance. In fact, we should perhaps go a little further so that an only_update never inhibits rebalance from a concurrent !only_update.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists