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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 16:05:55 +0100 From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com> To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com> Cc: luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>, Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>, Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] sched/dl: Improve deadline admission control for asymmetric CPU capacities On Monday 08 Jul 2019 at 13:22:35 (+0200), Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 5/7/19 4:43 PM, luca abeni wrote: > > On Tue, 7 May 2019 15:31:27 +0100 > > Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com> wrote: > > > >> On Tuesday 07 May 2019 at 16:25:23 (+0200), luca abeni wrote: > >>> On Tue, 7 May 2019 14:48:52 +0100 > >>> Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Luca, > >>>> > >>>> On Monday 06 May 2019 at 06:48:31 (+0200), Luca Abeni wrote: > > [...] > > >> Right and things moved recently in this area, see bb1fbdd3c3fd > >> ("sched/topology, drivers/base/arch_topology: Rebuild the sched_domain > >> hierarchy when capacities change") > > > > Ah, thanks! I missed this change when rebasing the patchset. > > I guess this part of the patch has to be updated (and probably became > > useless?), then. > > [...] > > >>> This achieved the effect of correctly setting up the "rd_capacity" > >>> field, but I do not know if there is a better/simpler way to achieve > >>> the same result :) > >> > >> OK, that's really an implementation detail, so no need to worry too > >> much about it at the RFC stage I suppose :-) > > What about we integrate the code to calculate the rd capacity into > build_sched_domains() (next to the code to establish the rd > max_cpu_capacity)? Right, that's also what Vincent suggested IIRC. I think that'd work :) Thanks, Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists