linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 4/8] Improve the tracking of active utilisation

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:	Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:00:53 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/8] Improve the tracking of active utilisation

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 02:41:29PM +0100, luca abeni wrote:

> > Some day we should fix this :-)

> I am trying to have a better look at the code, and I think that
> implementing bandwidth inheritance (BWI) could be easy (implementing
> M-BWI, that can be analyzed on multi-processor systems, is more complex
> because it requires busy waiting or similar).

Ah indeed, I remember now. To which I said that if busy-waiting is
'correct' so then must not busy-waiting be, for that consumes less
cputime and would allow more actual work to be done.

Of course, I might have missed some subtle detail, but intuition
suggests the above.

> > Nope, but fixing this is likely to be non-trivial.

> Ok... So, if this is acceptable for this patchset I'll try to keep the
> current PI behaviour,

Yeah that's fine. That's decidedly outside the scope of these patches.

> and I'll try to have a look at a better PI
> protocol after the runtime reclaiming stuff is done (that is, I make it
> acceptable for mainline, or we decide that a different approach is
> needed).

That would be very nice indeed!