linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] 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:   Wed, 7 Aug 2019 12:16:46 +0100
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org
Cc:     pauld@...hat.com, srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        quentin.perret@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        Morten.Rasmussen@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] sched/fair: rework load_balance

On 06/08/2019 18:17, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> @@ -8765,7 +8942,7 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
>>  	env.src_rq = busiest;
>>  
>>  	ld_moved = 0;
>> -	if (busiest->cfs.h_nr_running > 1) {
>> +	if (busiest->nr_running > 1) {
> 
> Shouldn't that stay h_nr_running ? We can't do much if those aren't CFS
> tasks.
> 

Wait, so that seems to be a correction of an over-zealous rename in patch
2/8, but I think we actually *do* want it to be a cfs.h_nr_running check
here.

And actually this made me have a think about our active balance checks,
I'm cooking something up in that regards.