linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] sched/fair: fix inconsistency in update_task_scan

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]

Message-ID: <20230425102416.GA1335080@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2023 12:24:16 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     zhaomzhao@....com
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Zhao Mengmeng <zhaomengmeng@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] sched/fair: fix inconsistency in
 update_task_scan_period

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 06:02:04AM -0400, zhaomzhao@....com wrote:
> From: Zhao Mengmeng <zhaomengmeng@...inos.cn>
> 
> During calculate numa_scan_period diff, the actual code
> and the comment are inconsistent. The comment says it is
> using shared faults ratio, but code uses private faults
> ratio. This patch fixes it.

So for some reason you think the comment is correct ? You also don't
discuss the performance changes caused by changing the code.