linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: don't push cfs

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: <xm2636kgxccv.fsf@bsegall-linux.svl.corp.google.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:26:08 -0700
From:   bsegall@...gle.com
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: don't push cfs_bandwith slack timers forward

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 10:21:01AM -0700, bsegall@...gle.com wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> index efa686eeff26..60219acda94b 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> @@ -356,6 +356,7 @@ struct cfs_bandwidth {
>>  	u64			throttled_time;
>>  
>>  	bool                    distribute_running;
>> +	bool                    slack_started;
>>  #endif
>>  };
>
> I'm thinking we can this instead? afaict both idle and period_active are
> already effecitively booleans and don't need the full 16 bits.
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -338,8 +338,10 @@ struct cfs_bandwidth {
>  	u64			runtime_expires;
>  	int			expires_seq;
>  
> -	short			idle;
> -	short			period_active;
> +	u8			idle;
> +	u8			period_active;
> +	u8			distribute_running;
> +	u8			slack_started;
>  	struct hrtimer		period_timer;
>  	struct hrtimer		slack_timer;
>  	struct list_head	throttled_cfs_rq;
> @@ -348,9 +350,6 @@ struct cfs_bandwidth {
>  	int			nr_periods;
>  	int			nr_throttled;
>  	u64			throttled_time;
> -
> -	bool                    distribute_running;
> -	bool                    slack_started;
>  #endif
>  };
>  


Yeah, that makes sense to me, should I spin up another version of the
patch doing this too or do you have it from here?