linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] sched: Move shared_runq to __{enqueue,dequeue}

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:   Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:30:12 -0500
From:   David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 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,
        gautham.shenoy@....com, kprateek.nayak@....com, aaron.lu@...el.com,
        clm@...a.com, tj@...nel.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
        kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] sched: Move shared_runq to
 __{enqueue,dequeue}_entity()

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 12:51:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> 
> Ufff.. so I see how you ended up with the series in this form, but I
> typically prefer to have less back and forth. Perhaps fold back at least
> this last patch?

Sure, will do. I kept them separate so we could drop this patch from the
series if we didn't want it, but given that benchmarks seem to only
improve with this (if we also shard), I'll just fold this in with [0]
and the patch following it.

[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230710200342.358255-5-void@manifault.com/