linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2 sched_ext/for-6.12] sched_ext: Use ktime_get_ns() instead of rq_clock_task() in touch_core

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: <ZtIFS78LQf9jULTY@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 07:45:47 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 sched_ext/for-6.12] sched_ext: Use ktime_get_ns()
 instead of rq_clock_task() in touch_core_sched()

On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 12:40:14PM -0500, David Vernet wrote:
> >  	if (!sched_core_disabled())
> > -		p->scx.core_sched_at = rq_clock_task(rq);
> > +		p->scx.core_sched_at = ktime_get_ns();
> 
> Should we just use sched_clock_cpu()? That's what rq->clock is updated
> from, and it's what fair.c does on the balance path when the rq lock is
> unpinned.

That sounds more sensible. Will update.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun