linux-kernel - Re: RFC for a new Scheduling policy/class in the Linux-kernel

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1247789977.4929.147.camel@Palantir>
Date:	Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:19:37 +0200
From:	Raistlin <raistlin@...ux.it>
To:	Ted Baker <baker@...fsu.edu>
Cc:	Henrik Austad <henrik@...tad.us>,
	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Douglas Niehaus <niehaus@...c.ku.edu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
	Linux RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	Fabio Checconi <fabio@...dalf.sssup.it>,
	"James H. Anderson" <anderson@...unc.edu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
	Noah Watkins <jayhawk@....ucsc.edu>,
	KUSP Google Group <kusp@...glegroups.com>,
	Tommaso Cucinotta <cucinotta@...up.it>,
	Giuseppe Lipari <lipari@...is.sssup.it>
Subject: Re: RFC for a new Scheduling policy/class in the Linux-kernel

On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 19:13 -0400, Ted Baker wrote:
> To be sure we are using A and B the same way here:
>   B is holding a lock.  
>   A wants that lock.
>   A grants its priority B until B releases the lock.
> 
> How to look at the charges for usage seems not to have a perfect
> solution.  That is, you can't get around the fact that either:
>
> [...]
>
> The right way to resolve this conflict seems to depend a lot on
> where B runs, as well as whether you are managing budget per-CPU
> (partitioned model) or managing it globally (free migration
> model).
> 
> 1) In a global scheduling model, it does not matter where B runs.
> We want to charge B's critical section to B, since our
> schedulability analysis is based on the processor usage of each
> task.  It would be broken if A could be charged random bits of
> time for the execution of other tasks.  So, we must charge B.
> 
Mmm... Why can't we make B able to exploit A's bandwidth to speed up
critical section completion, to the benefit of A as well? I mean, it
depends on how analysis is being carried out, and it is probably good or
bad depending on what you care most, e.g., making all task's deadline or
isolating the various components between each other... But I wouldn't
say it is "broken".

Especially because I implemented it once... Very rough, very
experimental, far from being ready for anything different than some
experiments... But it worked! :-)

> 2) In a partitioned scheuling model, we worry about the
> CPU utilization of each processor.  We have several cases, depending
> where B runs when it runs with A's priority:
> 
Ok, I'm not going into this, since I need a little bit more time to
figure out the details... I'm concentrating on global scheduling for
now! :-D

Regards,
Dario

-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa  (Italy)

http://blog.linux.it/raistlin / raistlin@...ga.net /
dario.faggioli@...ber.org

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)