linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] scheduler changes for v5.5

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: <20191125150811.GA116487@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:08:11 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] scheduler changes for v5.5


* Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com> wrote:

> On 25/11/2019 12:59, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> So I really don't want to be labeled as "that annoying scheduler PR guy",
> but some patches in Vincent's rework should be squashed to avoid being
> performance bisection honeypots.

I really didn't want to do an intrusive rebasing of the Git tree though, 
especially as we didn't know whether the improvements a) improved things 
b) were stable:

> > Vincent Guittot (14):
> >       sched/fair: Remove meaningless imbalance calculation
> >       sched/fair: Rework load_balance()
> 
> These two ^ (were split for ease of reviewing, [1])
> 
> >       sched/fair: Rework find_idlest_group()
> >       sched/fair: Fix rework of find_idlest_group()
> 
> And these two ^ (Mel voiced similar concerns at [2])

We can give testers a linearized tree for testing, should this come up 
(which I doubt it will ...), ok?

Thanks,

	Ingo