linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] observe and act upon workload parallelism: PERF_TYPE_PARALLELISM (Was: [RFC][PATCH] sched_wait

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: <20091116183117.48a02426@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:31:17 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Stijn Devriendt <highguy@...il.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] observe and act upon workload parallelism:
 PERF_TYPE_PARALLELISM (Was: [RFC][PATCH] sched_wait_block: wait for blocked
 threads)

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:02:50 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > Regarding the API and your patch, i think we can and should do something 
> > different and more capable - while still keeping your basic idea:
> 
> Actually, I'd suggest exactly the reverse.
> 
> Yes, do something different, but _less_ capable, and much simpler: 
> introduce the notion of "grouped thread scheduling", where a _group_ of 
> threads gets scheduled as one thread.

And preferably expose it so it can be used by groups of processes as well
as just "threads" in the userspace shared pid etc sense. There are quite
a few applications where both "only run one of us" and "don't pre-empt
within the group" are a useful semantic (you often don't want the
pre-empting within the group of threads because it messes up all the
improved locking opportunities). In particular the usual buzz locks don't
mix well with "only run one of us".

Alan
--
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/