linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/19] sched/numa: Evaluate move once per node

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: <1528123887.7898.103.camel@surriel.com>
Date:   Mon, 04 Jun 2018 10:51:27 -0400
From:   Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To:     Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/19] sched/numa: Evaluate move once per node

On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 15:30 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:

> @@ -1564,97 +1563,73 @@ static void task_numa_compare(struct
> task_numa_env *env,
>  	if (cur == env->p)
>  		goto unlock;
>  
> +	if (!cur) {
> +		if (!move || imp <= env->best_imp)
> +			goto unlock;
> +		else
> +			goto assign;
> +	}

Just bike shedding, but it may be easier to read
if the "we found our destination" check were written
more explicitly:


	if (!cur) {
		if (move && imp > env->best_imp)
			gote assign;
		else
			goto unlock;
	}

Also, the "move" variable seems to indicate that
the NUMA code may move the task, but not a decision
that moving the task is better than a swap.

Would it make sense to call it "maymove"?

I like how this patch simplifies the code a little.

-- 
All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)