linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: RT_RUNTIME

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:   Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:42:38 -0600 (CST)
From:   Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <daniel@...stot.me>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: RT_RUNTIME_GREED sched feature

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 21:06:50 +0100
> Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <daniel@...stot.me> wrote:
>
> > The throttling allowed the kworker to run, but once the kworker went to
> > sleep, the RT tasks started to work again. In the previous behavior,
> > the system would either go idle, or the kworker would starve because
> > the runtime become infinity for RR tasks.
>
> I'm confused? Are you saying that RR tasks don't get throttled in the
> current code? That sounds like a bug to me.

Good. Thats what I wanted to hear after all these justifications that the
system is just behaving as designed.