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 Feb 2016 11:58:12 +0000
From:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To:	luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
Cc:	rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	wanpeng.li@...mail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted
 bandwidth

On 10/02/16 12:43, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi all,
> 

Hi Luca,

> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:32:58 +0000
> Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com> wrote:
> [...]
> > @@ -2445,14 +2445,18 @@ static int dl_overflow(struct task_struct *p,
> > int policy, if (dl_policy(policy) && !task_has_dl_policy(p) &&
> >  	    !__dl_overflow(dl_b, cpus, 0, new_bw)) {
> >  		__dl_add(dl_b, new_bw);
> > +		__dl_add_ac(task_rq(p), new_bw);
> >  		err = 0;
> >  	} else if (dl_policy(policy) && task_has_dl_policy(p) &&
> >  		   !__dl_overflow(dl_b, cpus, p->dl.dl_bw, new_bw)) {
> >  		__dl_clear(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw);
> > +		__dl_sub_ac(task_rq(p), p->dl.dl_bw);
> >  		__dl_add(dl_b, new_bw);
> > +		__dl_add_ac(task_rq(p), new_bw);
> >  		err = 0;
> >  	} else if (!dl_policy(policy) && task_has_dl_policy(p)) {
> >  		__dl_clear(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw);
> > +		__dl_sub_ac(task_rq(p), p->dl.dl_bw);
> 
> Instead of adding __dl_add_ac() and __dl_sub_ac) calls here, maybe they
> can be added in switched_to_dl() and switched_from_dl()?
> 

That might work too yes. I think there is value if we are able to move
all __dl_{add,sub}_ac calls in deadline.c. Actually, we should probably
move __dl_{add,clear} there as well, so that changes to rq and
root_domain happen at the same time.

> I'll test this idea locally, and I'll send an updated patch if it works.
> 

Thanks! Will wait for it :).

Best,

- Juri

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ