linux-kernel - Re: [GIT RFC PULL rcu/urgent] Prevent Kconfig from asking pointless questions

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:	Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:35:54 -0500
From:	Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT RFC PULL rcu/urgent] Prevent Kconfig from asking pointless
 questions

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 19:05:42 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > 	Real-time priority to use for RCU worker threads (RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO) [0] (NEW) 
> > > 
> > > Indeed, Linus complained about this one.  ;-)
> > 
> > :-) Yes, it's an essentially unanswerable question.
> > 
> > > This Kconfig parameter is a stopgap, and needs a real solution.  
> > > People with crazy-heavy workloads involving realtime cannot live 
> > > without it, but that means that most people don't have to care.  I 
> > > have had solving this on my list, and this clearly increases its 
> > > priority.
> > 
> > So what value do they use, prio 99? 98? It might be better to offer 
> > this option as a binary choice, and set a given priority. If -rt 
> > people complain then they might help us in solving it properly.
> 
> I honestly do not remember what priority they were using, it is
> not in email, and I don't keep IRC logs that far back.  Adding
> linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org on CC.

As I recall, we started out using fifo:1, but when you get heavy
workloads running at higher fifo priorities, we wanted to boost the rcu
worker threads over those workloads. 

Currently the irq threads default to fifo:50, so maybe a good
default choice for the rcu threads on RT is fifo:49. That of course
presumes rational behavior on the part of application developers. 

I seem to recall that you and I had a discussion about making this
value a runtime knob in /sys but that didn't go anywhere. Do we need to
crank that up again and just use the config as a default/starting
value? If so then we could just default to fifo:1 and let sysadmins
tweak the value to match up with the workload. 

Clark

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped