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]

Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 20:15:19 +0100
From: Yun Levi <ppbuk5246@...il.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
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.

Hi Markus.

> * Why did you repeat typos in this patch iteration?

> * Would you like to take the relevance of imperative wordings for changelogs
  better into account?

Sorry for my mistake, I've fixed it but, I sent an old one :(

Thanks

On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 7:38 PM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de> wrote:
>
> > 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