linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/1][PATCH] POSIX SCHED_SPORADIC implementation for tasks and groups

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: <1218464753.10800.92.camel@twins>
Date:	Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:25:53 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc:	Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/1][PATCH] POSIX SCHED_SPORADIC implementation for tasks
	and	groups

On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 07:11 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > I'm spending some time implementing the POSIX real-time SCHED_SPORADIC
> > scheduling policy on top of the mainline Linux kernel, and here it is
> > the code in its very first version.
> 
> I'm not commenting on the code or usefulness of ht features.  I just
> want to point out a problem.
> 
> The authors of that POSIX extension unfortunately decided to extend the
> sched_param structure.  If you look at the definition of that structure
> Linux uses you'll see that there is no place for this.  I.e., any
> implementation of that feature following the POSIX spec to the letter
> will introduce major headache in the form of binary incompatibility.
> 
> In case the features is useful enough (I actually always thought it
> isn't an have actually proposed to remove it again from POSIX) then I
> would rather prefer to not claim support for this feature in the POSIX
> way.  One could still implement it as described.  But change the
> interface to not require the sched_param change.

Whichever way you turn SCHED_SPORADIC or SCHED_EDF etc.. you'll need
some place to pass along extra data. The single int in sched_param is
not enough for these policies.

My suggestion would be to create struct sched_param2 with plenty of
padding to support future expansion and add
sys_sched_setscheduler2()/sys_sched_getscheduler2() to deal with this
new structure.

I think at least 3 struct timespec fields and a flags field might be
needed for the most exotic deadline parameters:

 - budget
 - deadline
 - period

My own take is that SCHED_SPORADIC is a nice excersice in scheduler
development - but I'm not sure its actually in demand from application
developers (those of you who actually write RT progs, please holler if
you care - I'm interested to hear your stories).

SCHED_EDF is in great demand - and is being worked on - albeit not as
much as I'd like to, due to me being too busy with other stuff atm :-/

--
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/