linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] time/tick-sched: idle load balancing when nohz

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: <b4156f2a-ea8d-483a-b485-db4b5a80b1fe@web.de>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 20:38:56 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Levi Yun <ppbuk5246@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
 Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
 Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] time/tick-sched: idle load balancing when nohz_full
 cpu becomes idle.

> When nohz_full CPU stops tick in tick_nohz_irq_exit(),
> It wouldn't be chosen to perform idle load balancing bacause it doesn't
…
> So, nohz_balance_enter_idle() could be called safely without !was_stooped
> check.

* Why did you repeat typos in this patch iteration?

* Would you like to take the relevance of imperative wordings for changelogs
  better into account?
  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.9-rc7#n94

> ---
>  kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 6 ++++--

Will further patch version descriptions become helpful behind the marker line?

Regards,
Markus