linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v5 4/7] sched: bias task wakeups to preferred semi-idle packages

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:	Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:32:36 +0530
From:	"Balbir Singh" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Suresh B Siddha" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	"Venkatesh Pallipadi" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Dipankar Sarma" <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	Vatsa <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Gautham R Shenoy" <ego@...ibm.com>,
	"Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"David Collier-Brown" <davecb@....com>,
	"Tim Connors" <tconnors@...ro.swin.edu.au>,
	"Max Krasnyansky" <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
	"Gregory Haskins" <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 4/7] sched: bias task wakeups to preferred semi-idle packages

>> > > Sure its racy, but so what?
>> > >
>> > > The worst I can see it that we exclude a dying task from this logic,
>> > > which isn't a problem at all, since its dying anyway.
>> >
>> > At which point I seriously doubt it'd still be on the rq anyway.
>> >
>>
>> I forgot to mention that, the check should be (p->mm && !(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
>
> I can check for PF_KTHREAD for now.  However, I should reduce the
> number of checks since this may slow down wake_idle for sched_mc=2.
>
> We can tolerate p->mm check on a dying process as Peter has suggested,
> hence we don't need to protect it.  We are not going to access any
> contents of the mm struct.
>
> If PF_KTHREAD is only being used by AIO, then I feel we can drop the
> check since the threads will not have affinity and they can be moved
> to other cpus anyway.
>
> The main reason for skipping kthread is that they may be using per-cpu
> variables and sleep/preempted.  I did not want the wake_idle() logic
> to move them around forcefully.  This is not the general case and this
> situation should not happen.
>
> Second reason is to optimise on the affinity check since most of the
> kthreads have affinity and cannot be moved.
>
> This condition check needs optimisation after getting the framework
> functionally correct and useful.


Vaidy, you (or your mailer) seem to have dropped me off of the to/cc
list while replying and this seems to be the case for all replies.

Balbir
--
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/