linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/17] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks

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: <d0b63072-62a9-7738-1bfb-04d1370e8915@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Apr 2019 15:12:36 -0700
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>
Cc:     Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, pjt@...gle.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com,
        fweisbec@...il.com, keescook@...omium.org, kerrnel@...gle.com,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/17] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks

On 4/24/19 1:43 PM, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
>> A minor nitpick.  I find keeping the vruntime base readjustment in
>> core_prio_less probably is more straight forward rather than pass a
>> core_cmp bool around.
> 
> The reason I moved the vruntime base adjustment to __prio_less is
> because, the vruntime seemed alien to __prio_less when looked as
> a standalone function.

Doing the adjustment in core_prio_less
will save us an extra "if" comparison.  I'm fine either way.

Thx.

Tim 

> 
> I do not have a strong opinion on both. Probably a better approach
> would be to replace both cpu_prio_less/core_prio_less with prio_less
> which takes the third arguement 'bool on_same_rq'?
> 
> Thanks
>