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: <20180425090327.7mwm2pdheeptz6sd@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:33:27 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, c@...ez.programming.kicks-ass.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Rearrange select_task_rq_fair() to optimize
 it

On 25-04-18, 09:13, Quentin Perret wrote:
> While you're at it, you could probably remove the one in wake_cap() ? I
> think having just one in select_task_rq_fair() should be enough.

Just make it clear, you are asking me to remove sync_entity_load_avg()
in wake_cap() ? But aren't we required to do that, as in the very next
line we call task_util(p) ?

-- 
viresh