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]
Date:   Wed, 24 Apr 2019 15:12:36 -0700
From:   Tim Chen <>
To:     Vineeth Remanan Pillai <>
Cc:     Nishanth Aravamudan <>,
        Julien Desfossez <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Aubrey Li <>,,,,,,,,,,
        Aaron Lu <>,
        Valentin Schneider <>,
        Mel Gorman <>,
        Pawan Gupta <>,
        Paolo Bonzini <>,
        Phil Auld <>
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.



> 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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists