linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched/fair: Manage lag and run to parity with different slices

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: <CAKfTPtA-2YjQ-9jgrAZPT6v0R5X04Q5PoZ6Pa0TzAZji3=jiyg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:03:41 +0200
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com, 
	rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched/fair: Manage lag and run to parity with
 different slices

On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 at 11:22, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 04:05:10PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Vincent Guittot (3):
> >   sched/fair: Use protect_slice() instead of direct comparison
> >   sched/fair: Limit run to parity to the min slice of enqueued entities
> >   sched/fair: Improve NO_RUN_TO_PARITY
>
> Ah. I wrote these here patches and then totally forgot about them :/.
> They take a different approach.
>
> The approach I took was to move decision to stick with curr after pick,
> instead of before it. That way we can evaluate the tree at the time of
> preemption.

Let me have a look at your patches

>
>