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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:20:21 +0000
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
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

On 25/11/2019 15:08, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> We can give testers a linearized tree for testing, should this come up 
> (which I doubt it will ...), ok?
> 

My worry (and I think Mel's) is on performance bisection of the mainline
tree (not specifically on the load balancer rework), by LKP or else. It's
not something I personally do (nor expect to do in the foreseeable future),
so Mel is much better positioned than I to argue for/against this.

Still, I was under the impression that not introducing (scheduler)
regressions in the git history was valuable. If I'm misguided, feel free to
ignore.

> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo
>