linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] sched/fair: rework load

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]

Date:   Fri, 19 Jul 2019 15:57:08 +0200
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>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] sched/fair: rework load_balance

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 at 15:06, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 09:58:23AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > @@ -7887,7 +7908,7 @@ static inline int sg_imbalanced(struct sched_group *group)
> >  static inline bool
> >  group_has_capacity(struct lb_env *env, struct sg_lb_stats *sgs)
> >  {
> > -     if (sgs->sum_h_nr_running < sgs->group_weight)
> > +     if (sgs->sum_nr_running < sgs->group_weight)
> >               return true;
> >
> >       if ((sgs->group_capacity * 100) >
> > @@ -7908,7 +7929,7 @@ group_has_capacity(struct lb_env *env, struct sg_lb_stats *sgs)
> >  static inline bool
> >  group_is_overloaded(struct lb_env *env, struct sg_lb_stats *sgs)
> >  {
> > -     if (sgs->sum_h_nr_running <= sgs->group_weight)
> > +     if (sgs->sum_nr_running <= sgs->group_weight)
> >               return false;
> >
> >       if ((sgs->group_capacity * 100) <
>
> I suspect this is a change you can pull out into a separate patch after
> the big change. Yes it makes sense to account the other class' task
> presence, but I don't think it is strictly required to be in this patch.

yes