linux-kernel - Re: Changing Kernel thread priorities

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: <1307456080.2322.264.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:14:40 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Remy Bohmer <linux@...mer.net>
Cc:	Armin Steinhoff <armin@...inhoff.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Johannes Bauer <hannes_bauer@....at>,
	Monica Puig-Pey <puigpeym@...can.es>,
	Rolando Martins <rolando.martins@...il.com>,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Changing Kernel thread priorities

On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 13:02 +0200, Remy Bohmer wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> 2011/6/7 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>:
> > On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 11:40 +0200, Armin Steinhoff wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> when I read all these confusing statements here ( in german it looks
> >> like an "Eiertanz")  ... I can only say:
> >>
> >> - do the basic stuff in a minimal kernel driver
> >> - use UIO (or VFIO for PCI devices)
> >
> > I see no requirement for any of those horrid things to be used. You can
> > write a full on proper kernel driver, it just cannot set kernel thread
> > priorities to a sane value (let them all default to 50 or so).
> >
> > Then have a user space script or whatever set the kthread priorities.
> >> and you get clean control about your real-time priorities.
> >> I think changing the priorities of "interrupt threads" inside the kernel
> >> could lead to strange race conditions in the kernel.
> 
> Well, I 100% agree that it must be under full userspace control to be
> able to set the priorities. But, the kernel default assumption of
> starting everything at 50 is wrong as well.
> Imagine the following situation:
> * Realtime application is running and has threads active in the range
> of prios 20 - 90.
> * Now bring up a network device, it immediately starts spamming the
> system at prio 50 _before_ you have the chance to set it below 20 by
> means of chrt.
> * RT behaviour is gone!

Good point I guess, Thomas should we default to 1 for everything?

--
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/