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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <95f22502-16e6-555c-fb61-e1a9e88f1163@arm.com> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 13:58:13 +0200 From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com> To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net Cc: juri.lelli@...hat.com, Morten.Rasmussen@....com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, valentin.schneider@....com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4 v4] sched/pelt: Move pelt related code in a dedicated file On 03/16/2018 12:25 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote: > We want to track rt_rq's utilization as a part of the estimation of the > whole rq's utilization. This is necessary because rt tasks can steal > utilization to cfs tasks and make them lighter than they are. > As we want to use the same load tracking mecanism for both and prevent > useless dependency between cfs and rt code, pelt code is moved in a > dedicated file. This would mean that we introduce function calls into the cfs scheduler fast-path, something we avoided so far (e.g. the cpu and frequency invariance hooks). Are we OK with that? Quentin mentioned this already during v3 review back in December. [...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists