linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.21-rc1: known regressions (v2) (part 2)

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]

Message-Id: <1172751642.11473.57.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:20:42 +0100
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc1: known regressions (v2) (part 2)

On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 23:05 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > And that's the depressing part because of course I was interested in that
> > > as the original approach to the problem (and it was a big problem). When
> > > I spoke to Intel and AMD (of course to date no SMT AMD chip exists) at
> > > kernel summit they said it was too hard to implement hardware priorities
> > > well. Which is real odd since IBM have already done it with Power...
> > >
> > > Still I think it has been working fine in software till now, but now it
> > > has to deal with the added confusion of dynticks, so I already know what
> > > will happen to it.
> >
> > Well, it's not a dyntick problem in the first place. Even w/o dynticks
> > we go idle with local_softirq_pending(). Dynticks contains an explicit
> > check for that, which makes it visible.
> 
> Oops I'm sorry if I made it sound like there's a dynticks problem. That was 
> not my intent and I said as much in an earlier email. Even though I'm finding 
> myself defending code that has already been softly tagged for redundancy, 
> let's be clear here; we're talking about at most a further 70ms delay in 
> scheduling a niced task in the presence of a nice 0 task, which is a 
> reasonable delay for ksoftirqd which we nice the eyeballs out of in mainline. 
> Considering under load our scheduler has been known to cause scheduling 
> delays of 10 seconds I still don't see this as a bug. Dynticks just "points 
> it out to us".

Well, dyntick might end up to delay it for X seconds as well, which _is_
observable and that's why the check was put there in the first place.

	tglx


-
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/