linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/fair: Cleanup load

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: <20181030124104.GC8177@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:41:04 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, Dietmar.Eggemann@....com,
        patrick.bellasi@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/fair: Cleanup load_balance() condition

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:27:59AM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 26/09/2018 16:12, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > The alignment of the condition is off, clean that up.
> > 
> > Also, logical operators have lower precedence than bitwise/relational
> > operators, so remove one layer of parentheses to make the condition a
> > bit simpler to follow.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 6 +++---
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 6bd142d..9cf93ba 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -8783,9 +8783,9 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
> >  
> >  out_one_pinned:
> >  	/* tune up the balancing interval */
> > -	if (((env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED) &&
> > -			sd->balance_interval < MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL) ||
> > -			(sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval))
> > +	if ((env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED &&
> > +	     sd->balance_interval < MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL) ||
> > +	    sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval)
> >  		sd->balance_interval *= 2;
> >  
> >  	ld_moved = 0;
> > 
> 
> Is there anything else that should be done for these two patches?

Have them now, Thanks!