linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] sched/fair: Task placement biasing using uclamp

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:   Thu, 21 Nov 2019 12:00:14 +0000
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, patrick.bellasi@...bug.net,
        qais.yousef@....com, morten.rasmussen@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] sched/fair: Task placement biasing using uclamp

On Wednesday 20 Nov 2019 at 17:55:30 (+0000), Valentin Schneider wrote:
> While uclamp restrictions currently only impacts schedutil's frequency
> selection, it would make sense to also let it impact CPU selection in
> asymmetric topologies. This would let us steer specific tasks towards
> certain CPU capacities regardless of their actual utilization - I give a
> few examples in patch 3.
> 
> The first two patches are just paving the way for the meat of the thing
> which is in patch 3.

This makes sense, and is in line with what Qais proposed for RT I think.
So, with the nit applied to patch 3:

  Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>

Thanks!
Quentin