linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] sched: Forward deadline for early tick

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20250120075522.51563-1-15645113830zzh@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 15:55:24 +0800
From: zihan zhou <15645113830zzh@...il.com>
To: 15645113830zzh@...il.com
Cc: bsegall@...gle.com,
	dietmar.eggemann@....com,
	juri.lelli@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mgorman@...e.de,
	mingo@...hat.com,
	peterz@...radead.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	vschneid@...hat.com,
	yaowenchao@...com,
	yaozhenguo@...com,
	zhouzihan30@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] sched: Forward deadline for early tick

I'm sorry, this email was an incorrect one. Please ignore this email.

> Thanks for your reply.
>
> > > >
> > > > In sched debug file /sys/kernel/debug/sched/debug, there is a "runnable
> > > > tasks" table, but not all tasks in the table are runnable.
> > > > It is inappropriate to refer to this table as "runnable tasks", so here it
> > > > is changed to "Tasks on CPU %d", like:
> > > 
> > > We have used replaced runnable by queued in fair scheduler
> > 
> > Right, but also 'tasks on cpu' is equally wrong -- but really, if you're
> > looking at sched/debug you have to know what you're doing anyway, so why
> > bother with trivial stuff like this?
> 
> Sorry, I just wanted to participate more in the kernel community. While
> debugging the scheduler, I found this wording error. It doesn't really
> affect anything, it just looks a bit awkward.
> 
> By the way, I am confused why 'tasks on cpu' is wrong. I think that
> the tasks in the table are on a certain CPU, maybe they are sleeping,
> but at least they were running on this CPU at the last moment. 
> 
> Looking forward to your answer. Of course, this matter doesn't seem
> important, and I will try to understand it myself in the future.