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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 14:42:34 +0100 From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com> To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] sched/topology: Split out SD_* flags declaration to its own file On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 06:33:18PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote: > diff --git a/include/linux/sched/sd_flags.h b/include/linux/sched/sd_flags.h > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..685bbe736945 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/include/linux/sched/sd_flags.h > @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +/* > + * sched-domains (multiprocessor balancing) flag declarations. > + */ > + > +/* Balance when about to become idle */ > +SD_FLAG(SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE, 0) > +/* Balance on exec */ > +SD_FLAG(SD_BALANCE_EXEC, 1) > +/* Balance on fork, clone */ > +SD_FLAG(SD_BALANCE_FORK, 2) > +/* Balance on wakeup */ > +SD_FLAG(SD_BALANCE_WAKE, 3) > +/* Wake task to waking CPU */ > +SD_FLAG(SD_WAKE_AFFINE, 4) Isn't it more like: "Consider waking task on waking CPU"? IIRC, with this flag set the wake-up can happen either near prev_cpu or this_cpu. > +/* Domain members have different CPU capacities */ > +SD_FLAG(SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY, 5) > +/* Domain members share CPU capacity */ > +SD_FLAG(SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY, 6) Perhaps add +" (SMT)" to the comment to help the uninitiated understanding it a bit easier? > +/* Domain members share power domain */ > +SD_FLAG(SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN, 7) This flag is set only by 32-bit arm and has never had any effect. I think it was the beginning of something years ago that hasn't progressed. Perhaps we can remove it now? > +/* Domain members share CPU pkg resources */ > +SD_FLAG(SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES, 8) +" (e.g. caches)" ? > +/* Only a single load balancing instance */ > +SD_FLAG(SD_SERIALIZE, 9) > +/* Place busy groups earlier in the domain */ > +SD_FLAG(SD_ASYM_PACKING, 10) Place busy _tasks_ earlier in the domain? It is a bit unclear what 'earlier' means here but since the packing ordering can actually be defined by the architecture, we can't be much more specific I guess. Morten
Powered by blists - more mailing lists