linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 5/9] sched/fair: Take into account latency priority at wakeup

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]

Message-ID: <CAKfTPtDQy9E=Ux=RWUZKM42XHGnVG_RNp4nnE-nEsRi5JLhpyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2023 16:34:19 +0100
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, parth@...ux.ibm.com,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, qyousef@...alina.io,
        chris.hyser@...cle.com, patrick.bellasi@...bug.net,
        David.Laight@...lab.com, pjt@...gle.com, pavel@....cz,
        tj@...nel.org, qperret@...gle.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
        joshdon@...gle.com, timj@....org, kprateek.nayak@....com,
        yu.c.chen@...el.com, youssefesmat@...omium.org,
        joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 5/9] sched/fair: Take into account latency priority at wakeup

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 16:08, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 03:21:54PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 14:05, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > > Should we perhaps also do this for latency_nice == 0?, in any case I
> > > think this can be moved to its own patch to avoid doing too much in the
> > > one patch. It seems fairly self contained.
> >
> > This function is then removed by patch 9 as the additional rb tree
> > fixes all cases
>
> Also, since you remove it again later, perhaps not introduce it at all?

Yes, I have done the split to easily revert patch 8  if needed but
keep good behavior. I can probably remove this and patch 9 completly