linux-kernel - Re: x86, mce, Use user return notifier in mce

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:	Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:19:30 +0800
From:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
	Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: x86, mce, Use user return notifier in mce

On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 21:56 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> > It appears that WQ_HIGHPRI only provides priority between work queue,
> > not between the work queue backing kthread and other tasks.  Is there
> > any mechanism for that?
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> > If my understanding was correct, WQ_MEM_RECLAIM has some side-effect for
> > that.  Because hardware errors occurs seldom, the reserved kthread for
> > WQ_MEME_RECLAIM just sleeps most of the time.  When first hardware error
> > occurs and the work item is queued, the reserved kthread is waked up.
> > Because the reserved kthread sleeps for long time, it is highly possible
> > for it to be scheduled at the next schedule point.
> 
> But rescuer is used only under memory pressure. It doesn't help latency at all.
> 
> > Because hardware error usually has no locality, WQ_UNBOUND can be used
> > for it so that the work item can be put on relative low-load CPU.  From
> > the document, it is said WQ_UNBOUND work items will be executed ASAP
> > too.  Compared with WQ_HIGHPRI, how about the priority of WQ_UNBOUND?
> 
> Maybe, maybe not. I suggest just using WQ_HIGHPRI for now and worrying
> about it later if the scheduling latency actually turns out to matter.

This is a performance issue.  So maybe we need to measure the actual
latency firstly.  The first step can be using WQ_HIGHPRI as you
suggested.

Thanks for your information!

Best Regards,
Huang Ying


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/