linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix task utilization accountability in cpu_util

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:   Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:43:39 +0000
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To:     Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@....com>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        patrick.bellasi@...bug.net, valentin.schneider@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix task utilization accountability in
 cpu_util_next()

On Monday 22 Feb 2021 at 16:39:47 (+0000), Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 04:23:42PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Monday 22 Feb 2021 at 15:58:56 (+0000), Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > But in any case, if we're going to address this, I'm still not sure this
> > > patch will be what we want. As per my first comment we need to keep the
> > > frequency estimation right.
> > 
> > Totally untested, but I think in principle you would like something like
> > the snippet below. Would that work?
> 
> You preempted my previous email :)
> 
> Yeah, that looks like what we want, I'll give a try.

Cool, thanks.

And ofc no strong opinion about the implementation details, this can
most certainly be optimized in some way so have fun :)

Cheers,
Quentin