linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: optimization of update_blocked

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKfTPtCT5zJUjaXmTytNuAA+HY25VVGdT7st9xPkpLZ8-4At0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Feb 2019 17:51:36 +0100
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
        Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>, xiezhipeng1@...wei.com,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: optimization of update_blocked_averages()

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 17:51, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 05:47:53PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 17:30, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 04:44:53PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 16:40, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > > > Good point but this should go after the for_each_sched_entity() loop
> > >
> > > Indeed, but that loop does enqueue and can throttle again, should that
> > > not also get that additional list_add_leaf_cfs_rq() loop we added to
> > > enqueue_task_fair() to finish the add?
> >
> > Initially, I added this additional loop but finally removed it because
> > I didn't hit it during my tests. IIRC, we are protected by
> > throttle_count in such case, which is not the case when we enqueue a
> > task
>
> Fair enough; and the to-be added assert will notify us if we got that
> wrong :-)
>
> I'll add the assert, no need to re-send.

Thanks

>
> Thanks!