linux-kernel - Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

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:	Tue, 3 Aug 2010 07:11:13 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mjg59@...f.ucam.org, pavel@....cz, florian@...kler.org,
	rjw@...k.pl, stern@...land.harvard.edu, swetland@...gle.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 09:56:10PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 03:47:08PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> ...
> >> Another one: freezing whole cgroups..... we have that today. it
> >> actually works quite well.... of course the hard part is the decision
> >> what to put in which cgroup, and at what frequency and duration you let
> >> cgroups run.
> >
> > Indeed, the Android guys seemed to be quite excited by cgroup freezing
> > until they thought about the application-classification problem.
> > Seems like it should be easy for some types of applications, but I do
> > admit that apps can have non-trivial and non-obvious dependencies.
> 
> The dependencies is what made this solution uninteresting to us. For
> instance, we currently use cgroup scheduling to reduce the impact of
> some background tasks, but we occasionally saw a watchdog restart of
> the system process were critical services were waiting on a kernel
> mutex owned by a background task for more than 20 seconds. If we froze
> a cgroup instead, we would not hit this particular problem since tasks
> cannot be frozen while executing kernel code the same way they can be
> preempted, but nothing prevents a task from being frozen while holding
> a user-space resource.

Excellent point -- I had completely missed this failure mode!!!

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/