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: <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 > > [...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists