linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v12 2/2] sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest

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: <CANrsvROOfkPw265ObAPJ_H2epP2SJJsV64xcAGvOCbqHgwny1w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:16:36 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@...il.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
        bristot@...hat.com, kernel-team@....com,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v12 2/2] sched/rt: Add support for
 SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq()

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:58:09 +0900
> Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Steven,
>>
>> I've changed the code a little bit to avoid a compile warning caused by
>> 'const' args of find_cpu(). Can I keep your Reviewed-by?
>>
>> BEFORE:
>> static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask,
>>                   const struct sched_domain *sd,
>>                   const struct sched_domain *prefer)
>>
>> AFTER:
>> static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask,
>>                   struct sched_domain *sd,
>>                   struct sched_domain *prefer)
>>
>> (I temporarily removed the Reviewed-by you gave me.)
>> Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
>
> I would fix sched_domain_span() to take a constant and keep the
> previous patch.

Right. I also considered it like you and asked it here:

   https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/11/106

But I didn't get any answer so tried to keep sched_domain_span()
unchanged conservatively.

Peterz, what's your opinion?

>
> -- Steve

-- 
Thanks,
Byungchul