linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 02/22] sched: add extended scheduling interface

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, 10 Nov 2010 23:17:56 +0100
From:	Raistlin <raistlin@...ux.it>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>, oleg@...hat.com,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>,
	Johan Eker <johan.eker@...csson.com>,
	"p.faure" <p.faure@...tech.ch>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
	michael trimarchi <trimarchi@...is.sssup.it>,
	Fabio Checconi <fabio@...dalf.sssup.it>,
	Tommaso Cucinotta <cucinotta@...up.it>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
	Nicola Manica <nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it>,
	Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...is.sssup.it>,
	Harald Gustafsson <hgu1972@...il.com>,
	paulmck <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 02/22] sched: add extended scheduling interface

On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 18:28 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 08:27 +0200, Raistlin wrote:
> > +struct sched_param_ex {
> > +       int sched_priority;
> > +       struct timespec sched_runtime;
> > +       struct timespec sched_deadline;
> > +       struct timespec sched_period;
> > +       unsigned int sched_flags;
> > +
> > +       struct timespec curr_runtime;
> > +       struct timespec used_runtime;
> > +       struct timespec curr_deadline;
> > +}; 
> 
> It would be better for alignment reasons to move the sched_flags field
> next to the sched_priority field.
> 
Makes sense, thanks. :-)

> I would suggest we add at least one more field so we can implement the
> stochastic model from UNC, sched_runtime_dev or sched_runtime_var or
> somesuch.
> 
Ok, no problem with that too.

BTW, as Dhaval was suggesting, are (after those changes) fine with this
new sched_param? Do we need some further mechanism to grant its
extendability?
Padding?
Versioning?
void *data field?
Whatever?

:-O

I'd like very much to have some discussion here, if you think it is
needed, in hope of avoiding future ABI issues as much as possible! :-P

Thanks,
Dario

-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa  (Italy)

http://blog.linux.it/raistlin / raistlin@...ga.net /
dario.faggioli@...ber.org

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)