linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] 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]

Message-ID: <CAKfTPtB+UKLzOtt9dujGJtZBXB9jr-fm-C5xxkDCCDtGVwj78Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Oct 2019 20:45:11 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] sched/fair: rework load_balance

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 19:39, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 05:30:02PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> > This is how I plan to get ride of the problem:
> > +             if (busiest->group_weight == 1 || sds->prefer_sibling) {
> > +                     unsigned int nr_diff = busiest->sum_h_nr_running;
> > +                     /*
> > +                      * When prefer sibling, evenly spread running tasks on
> > +                      * groups.
> > +                      */
> > +                     env->migration_type = migrate_task;
> > +                     lsub_positive(&nr_diff, local->sum_h_nr_running);
> > +                     env->imbalance = nr_diff >> 1;
> > +                     return;
> > +             }
>
> I'm thinking the max_t(long, 0, ...); variant reads a lot simpler and
> really _should_ work given that -fno-strict-overflow / -fwrapv mandates
> 2s complement.

Another point that I have overlooked is that sum_h_nr_running is
unsigned int whereas imbalance is long

In fact, (long) (unsigned long A - unsigned long B) >> 1 works correctly
but
(long) (unsigned int A - unsigned int B) >> 1 doesn't