linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Rearrange select_task_rq

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: <CAEi0qN=qnej22F31jM2CMajee2h+ie0+AptFscwa5L8Arp8q3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 08:46:08 -0700
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel.opensrc@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
        c@...ez.programming.kicks-ass.net,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Rearrange select_task_rq_fair() to optimize it

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:19:07PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> On 24/04/18 11:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:02:26AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> >> I'd argue making things easier to read is a non-negligible part as well.
>> >
>> > Right, so I don't object to either of these (I think); but it would be
>> > good to see this in combination with that proposed EAS change.
>> >
>>
>> True, I would've said the call to find_energy_efficient_cpu() ([1]) could
>> simply be added to the if (sd) {} case, but...
>
> I think the proposal was to put it before the for_each_domain() loop
> entirely, however...
>
>> > I think you (valentin) wanted to side-step the entire domain loop in
>> > that case or something.
>> >
>>
>> ...this would change more things. Admittedly I've been sort of out of the loop
>> (no pun intended) lately, but this doesn't ring a bell. That might have been
>> the other frenchie (Quentin) :)
>
> It does indeed appear I confused the two of you, it was Quentin playing
> with that.
>
> In any case, if there not going to be conflicts here, this all looks
> good.

Both Viresh's and Valentin's patch looks lovely to me too. I couldn't
spot anything wrong with them either. One suggestion I was thinking
off is can we add better comments to this code (atleast label fast
path vs slow path) ?

Also, annotate the conditions for the fast/slow path with
likely/unlikely since fast path is the common case? so like:

if (unlikely(sd)) {
  /* Fast path, common case */
  ...
} else if (...) {
  /* Slow path */
}


thanks,

- Joel