linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/32] nohz: Separate idle sleeping time accounting from nohz switching

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: <1314639841.2816.113.camel@twins>
Date:	Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:44:01 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@....ibm.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tim Pepper <lnxninja@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/32] nohz: Separate idle sleeping time accounting from
 nohz switching

On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 18:32 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:23:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 17:52 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > To prepare for having nohz mode switching independant from idle,
> > > pull the idle sleeping time accounting out of the tick stop API.
> > > 
> > > This implies to implement some new API to call when we
> > > enter/exit idle. 
> > 
> > I mean, I really love brevity, but you seem to just not state all the
> > important bits ;-)
> > 
> > So the goal is to disable the tick more often (say when running 1
> > userbound task), why does that need new hooks? If we already had the
> > tick disabled, the tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() call on going idle will
> > simply not do anything.
> > 
> > If we go from idle to running something we want to enable the tick
> > initially because doing the task wakeup involves RCU etc.. Once we find
> > the task is indeed userbound and we've finished all our state we can
> > disable the thing again.
> 
> That's because we are going to have two different sources of stop/restarting
> the tick: either idle or a random task. In the case of idle we have very
> specific things to handle like idle time accounting, idle stats, rcu, ...
> 
> I could do these things conditionally using a some idle_cpu() checks but
> the end result would not be very proper.

Right, but you didn't explain any of that in the changelog. So the
reasoning is that because tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() does more than
just stop the tick, and this extra work needs to be isolated to just the
idle case, therefore we need hooks specific for the idle loop.


--
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/