linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 15/15] nohz

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: <4D11C362.1060100@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Dec 2010 11:22:42 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@....ibm.com>,
	Tim Pepper <lnxninja@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 15/15] nohz_task: Procfs interface

On 12/21/2010 11:08 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 08:17:33PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >  On 12/21/2010 07:05 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >  >>
> >  >>   For an example of a per-cpu flag that is checked on every exit with
> >  >>   zero additional overhead on the flag clear case, look at
> >  >>   TIF_USER_RETURN_NOTIFY.
> >  >
> >  >Right, but the problem is actually that if we want to automate the nohz
> >  >attribute on every tasks, then you need you have this flag set for
> >  >all of these threads.
> >  >
> >  >No problem with that, but if nobody wants the nohz attribute, we don't
> >  >need to force that slow path.
> >
> >  When the scheduler detects the task is all alone, it sets the flag;
> >  when it blocks, or if another task joins, it drops the flag (at most
> >  one task per cpu has the flag set).
> >
> >  Does that work?
>
> Makes sense. And that integrates well with Peter's idea of creating a
> new cpuset attribute for the nohz tasks.
>
> But instead of making this detection from the scheduler, I think this
> should be done from the tick: if there is only one task running, set
> it the TF flag.
>
> But anyway, that's an optimisation. We can start with setting that flag
> on every task in that cpuset.

So long as we start without the new knob.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/