linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Simplify continue

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]

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 09:07:58 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	dietmar.eggemann@....com, qyousef@...alina.io,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vschneid@...hat.com,
	joshdon@...gle.com, riel@...riel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Simplify continue_balancing for newidle


* Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> newidle(CPU_NEWLY_IDLE) balancing doesn't stop the load balancing if the
> continue_balancing flag is reset. Other two balancing (IDLE, BUSY) do
> that. newidle balance stops the load balancing if rq has a task or there
> is wakeup pending. The same checks are present in should_we_balance for
> newidle. Hence use the return value and simplify continue_balancing
> mechanism for newidle. Update the comment surrounding it as well.

Assuming there are no side-effects to balancing behavior.

> No change in functionality intended.

Is this actually true? Any change to behavior invalidates such a sentence.

>  	/*
> +	 * We must set idle_stamp _before_ calling sched_balance_rq()
> +	 * for CPU_NEWLY_IDLE, such that we measure the this duration
> +	 * as idle time.
>  	 */

'the this' ...?

Thanks,

	Ingo