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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:30:59 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@...il.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        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 02:16:36PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> 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?

Maintainers, Peter and Ingo,

I believe it would be OK, even better to change sched_domain_span()
itself. But I wonder if you also think so, do you?

> >
> > -- Steve
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Byungchul