linux-kernel - Re: deadlock in scheduler enabling HRTICK feature

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:46:33 -0600
From:	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: deadlock in scheduler enabling HRTICK feature

On 6/26/13 1:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> What is the expectation that the feature provides? not a whole lot of
>> documentation on it. I walked down the path wondering if it solved an odd
>> problem we are seeing with the CFS in 2.6.27 kernel.
>
> Its supposed to use hrtimers for slice expiry instead of the regular tick.

So theoretically CPU bound tasks would get preempted sooner? That was my 
guess/hope anyways.

>
> IIRC it did work at some point but bitrotted a bit since. The good news is that
> the deadline scheduler wants to use it and I'll probably have to fix it up
> then.

Hmmm.... meaning I should not be expecting anything in the next couple 
of months? Any gut opinions on how to approach the nested problem - at 
least a quick hack for me to see if this option has any impact on our 
problem? eg., a CPU variable noting we already have the runqueue lock 
and no need to grab it a second time.

David
--
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/