linux-kernel - Re: periods and deadlines in SCHED

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: <1278748227.4390.26.camel@Palantir>
Date:	Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:50:27 +0200
From:	Raistlin <raistlin@...ux.it>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Song Yuan <song.yuan@...csson.com>,
	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Nicola Manica <nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it>,
	Luca Abeni <lucabe72@...il.it>,
	Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
	Harald Gustafsson <harald.gustafsson@...csson.com>,
	Bjoern Brandenburg <bbb@...il.unc.edu>, bastoni@...unc.edu,
	Giuseppe Lipari <lipari@...is.sssup.it>
Subject: Re: periods and deadlines in SCHED_DEADLINE

On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 16:32 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 15:38 +0200, Raistlin wrote:
> >  - do you think it could be useful to have a different syscall to deal
> >    with the period parameter (if it's different from deadline), e.g.,
> >    something useful to make the task periodic as you have (if I remember
> >    well) in Xenomai or RTAI?
> >    If you think it's worth doing that, do you think the
> >    task_wait_interval() syscall that we already added could/should do
> >    the job? 
> 
> Again, I'm afraid I need some extra education here in order to make a
> sensible comment.
> 
Hey, fine, where's the problem? :-P

> What are the exact semantics of this extra proposed syscall?
> 
Right now, it is:
task_wait_interval(t) --> "wake me up at the first instant after t when 
			   you can give me my full runtime"

> What exactly are the benefits over not having it, and simply rely on the
> task to not wake up more often, but if it does have it run into the lack
> of budget and sort it that way?
>
What you're saying obviously will always work, and it is actually a
quite common usage pattern (we use it like that a lot! :-)).

The new syscall might help when it is important for a task to
synchronize with the budget provisioning mechanism. It might be
uncommon, but there could be situations --more in hard than in soft
scenarios-- where you want to be sure that you're next job (and all the
subsequent ones, if you behave well) will get its full runtime, even if
this means waiting a little bit.

what I was wondering was if this semantic should be modified by the
introduction of the "period", but I also agree with Luca that we must do
our best to avoid confusion!

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" (199 bytes)