linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 8/12][PATCH] SCHED_DEADLINE: wait next instance syscall added.

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: <1262010601.7135.113.camel@laptop>
Date:	Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:30:01 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Raistlin <raistlin@...ux.it>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	michael trimarchi <michael@...dence.eu.com>,
	Fabio Checconi <fabio@...dalf.sssup.it>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
	Johan Eker <johan.eker@...csson.com>,
	"p.faure" <p.faure@...tech.ch>,
	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Henrik Austad <henrik@...tad.us>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>,
	Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sven@...bigcorporation.com>,
	Bjoern Brandenburg <bbb@...unc.edu>,
	Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it>,
	"giuseppe.lipari" <giuseppe.lipari@...up.it>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 8/12][PATCH] SCHED_DEADLINE: wait next instance syscall
 added.

On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 17:44 +0200, Raistlin wrote:
> This commit introduces another new SCHED_DEADLINE related syscall. It is
> called sched_wait_interval() and it has close-to-clock_nanosleep semantic.
> 
> However, for SCHED_DEADLINE tasks, it should be the call with which each
> job closes its current instance. In fact, in this case, the task is put to
> sleep and, when it wakes up, the scheduler is informed that a new job
> arrived, saving the overhead that usually comes with a task activation
> to enforce maximum task bandwidth.

The changelog suggests (and a very brief looks seems to confirm) that
this code could be much smaller by using hrtimer_nanosleep().

The implementation as presented seems to only call ->wait_interval()
when the timer arms, which seems like a bug, we should always call it,
regardless of whether we're on a period boundary.

--
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/