linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] sched/fair: Move active balance logic to its own function

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:   Tue, 1 Oct 2019 17:06:47 +0530
From:   Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, qais.yousef@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] sched/fair: Move active balance logic to its own
 function

> +unlock:
> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&busiest->lock, flags);
> +
> +	if (status == started)
> +		stop_one_cpu_nowait(cpu_of(busiest),
> +				    active_load_balance_cpu_stop, busiest,
> +				    &busiest->active_balance_work);
> +
> +	/* We've kicked active balancing, force task migration. */
> +	if (status != cancelled_affinity)
> +		sd->nr_balance_failed = sd->cache_nice_tries + 1;

Should we really update nr_balance_failed if status is cancelled?
I do understand this behaviour was present even before this change. But
still dont understand why we need to update if the current operation didn't
kick active_load_balance.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju