linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix runnable

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, 27 Feb 2020 15:17:20 +0000
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>, Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, zhout@...aldi.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix runnable_avg for throttled cfs

On 27.02.20 14:58, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 14:10, Vincent Guittot
> <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 12:20, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26.02.20 21:01, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 20:04, <bsegall@...gle.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> writes:

[...]

>>> Shouldn't this be 'current' rather 'new' h_nr_running for
>>> group_se->runnable_weight? IMHO, you want to cache the current value
>>> before you add/subtract task_delta.
>>
>> hmm... it can't be current in both places. In my explanation,
>> "current" means the current situation when we started to throttle cfs
>> and "new" means the new situation after we finished to throttle the
>> cfs. I should probably use old and new to prevent any
>> misunderstanding.
> 
> I'm about to send a new version to fix some minor changes: The if
> statement should have some  { }   as there are some on the else part
> 
> Would it be better for you if i use old and new instead of current and
> new in the commit message ?

Personally yes, but now I understand the other wording as well. Thanks.

[...]