linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 02/22] sched: add extended scheduling interface

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:	Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:05:51 +0100
From:	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...is.sssup.it>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Raistlin <raistlin@...ux.it>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>, oleg@...hat.com,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>,
	Johan Eker <johan.eker@...csson.com>,
	"p.faure" <p.faure@...tech.ch>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
	michael trimarchi <trimarchi@...is.sssup.it>,
	Fabio Checconi <fabio@...dalf.sssup.it>,
	Tommaso Cucinotta <cucinotta@...up.it>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
	Nicola Manica <nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it>,
	Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>,
	Harald Gustafsson <hgu1972@...il.com>,
	paulmck <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 02/22] sched: add extended scheduling interface

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 02:32:13PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 23:17 +0100, Raistlin wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 18:28 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 08:27 +0200, Raistlin wrote:
> > > > +struct sched_param_ex {
> > > > +       int sched_priority;
> > > > +       struct timespec sched_runtime;
> > > > +       struct timespec sched_deadline;
> > > > +       struct timespec sched_period;
> > > > +       unsigned int sched_flags;
> > > > +
> > > > +       struct timespec curr_runtime;
> > > > +       struct timespec used_runtime;
> > > > +       struct timespec curr_deadline;
> > > > +}; 
> > > 
> > > It would be better for alignment reasons to move the sched_flags field
> > > next to the sched_priority field.
> > > 
> > Makes sense, thanks. :-)
> > 
> > > I would suggest we add at least one more field so we can implement the
> > > stochastic model from UNC, sched_runtime_dev or sched_runtime_var or
> > > somesuch.
> > > 
> > Ok, no problem with that too.
> > 
> > BTW, as Dhaval was suggesting, are (after those changes) fine with this
> > new sched_param? Do we need some further mechanism to grant its
> > extendability?
> > Padding?
> > Versioning?
> > void *data field?
> > Whatever?
> > 
> > :-O
> > 
> > I'd like very much to have some discussion here, if you think it is
> > needed, in hope of avoiding future ABI issues as much as possible! :-P
> 
> Right, so you mentioned doing s/_ex/2/ on all this stuff, which brings
> it more in line with that other syscalls have done.
> 
> The last three parameters look to be output only as I've not yet found
> code that reads it, and __getparam_dl() doesn't even appear to set
> used_runtime.
> 

So, do you think its a good idea moving this information to schedstats?
It seems more in line for monitoring, which schedstat seems a more
appropriate destination.

thanks,
Dhaval
--
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/