linux-kernel - Re: general config preemption Q: preempt-model and Big-Lock Preemption

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200801071753.54656.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Mon, 7 Jan 2008 17:53:54 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Linda Walsh <lkml@...nx.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: general config preemption Q: preempt-model and Big-Lock Preemption

On Saturday 05 January 2008 14:25, Linda Walsh wrote:
> A question that comes to mind every time I go through the settings
> for "Preemption Model" and "Preempt The Big Kernel Lock".
>
> Do each of the combinations "make sense", or are some "no-ops"?
> For model, we have 1) no forced (server), 2) Voluntary (Desktop)
> 3) preemptible (low-latency Desktop), and for Big Lock Preemption (BLP),
> we have "yes" or "no".
>
> Questions:
>
> 1) What is the difference between "no forced" and "voluntary"?  Doesn't
>   voluntary normally mean "not forced"?

voluntary adds a few more cond_resched() points.


> 2) If a process is not preemptible, then it seems this would be "doubly
>   so" in the kernel when the big-lock is held.  So does the big-lock
>   preemption question have any effect (when preempt-model="no forced").

With BLP, AFAIK code may not assume preemption is disabled. Debug checks
should have caught any offenders by now.

When there is no kernel preemption, I guess BLP still allows contenders
to sleep and switch rather than spin, so it might improve throughput (or
harm it!).


> 3) If a process is "fully preemptible" but "BLP=false", is that
>   much different than "voluntary preemption" & BLP=false?  I.e. --
>   should 'preemptible kernel' also imply "BLP=true"...i.e.

Yeah, they're all slightly different I think, but it probably is too much
config options at this point in time. I think Ingo plans to make BLP the
default and remove the config option.
--
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/