linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to workqueue infrastructure

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, 01 Aug 2007 14:02:25 -0700
From:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to
	workqueue infrastructure

On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 00:50 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/01, Daniel Walker wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 00:18 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 08/01, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 22:12 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > And I personally think it is not very useful, even if it was correct.
> > > > > You can create your own workqueue and change the priority of cwq->thread.
> > > > 
> > > > This change is more dynamic than than just setting a single priority ..
> > > > There was some other work going on around this, so it's not totally
> > > > clear what the benefits are ..
> > > 
> > > Yes, I see. But still I think the whole idea is broken, not just the
> > > implementation.
> > 
> > It's translating priorities through the work queues, which doesn't seem
> > to happen with the current implementation. A high priority, say
> > SCHED_FIFO priority 99, task may have to wait for a nice -5 work queue
> > to finish..
> 
> Why should that task wait?

If the high priority tasks is waiting for the work to complete..
Assuming the scenario happens which your more likely to know than me.. 

I suppose in the flush_workqueue situation a thread could be waiting on
the lower priority work queue ..

> > > What about delayed_work? insert_work() will use ->normal_prio of
> > > the random interrupted process, while queue_work() uses current.
> > 
> > Actually it would be the priority of the timer softirq .. I think what
> > is desired here would be saving the priority of the task calling
> > delayed_work then using that..
> 
> But mainline calls  __do_softirq() from interrupt (irq_exit).

Yeah, I suppose your right in that case .. In -rt softirq's are all in
threads so it would be the timer softirq thread..

Daniel

-
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/