linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4 v4] sched/pelt: Move pelt related code in a dedicated file

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]

Message-ID: <CAKfTPtCp2Qy7pZoTQH-550pJ2DZqwR2aAzk0+2B5b8DOenU4uA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 15 Apr 2018 14:16:37 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
        viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4 v4] sched/pelt: Move pelt related code in a dedicated file

On 15 April 2018 at 13:58, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
> 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.

Yes and I hadn't seen any differences in the code size with the patch
which should have been the case if inline function where replaced by
function call


>
> [...]