linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Relax a restriction in sched_rt_can

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, 04 May 2015 14:08:33 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To:	Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Relax a restriction in sched_rt_can_attach()

On Mon, 2015-05-04 at 17:11 +0800, Zefan Li wrote:
> >>> Some degree of flexibility is provided so that you may disable some controllers
> >>> in a subtree. For example:
> >>>
> >>> root                  ---> child1
> >>> (cpuset,memory,cpu)        (cpuset,memory)
> >>>                       \
> >>>                        \-> child2
> >>>                            (cpu)
> >>
> >> Whew, that's a relief.  Thanks.
> > 
> > But somehow I'm not feeling a whole lot better.
> > 
> > "May" means if you don't explicitly take some action to disable group
> > scheduling, you get it (I don't care if I have an off button), but that
> > would also seemingly mean that we would then have rt tasks in taskgroups
> > with no bandwidth allocated, ie you have to make group scheduling for rt
> > tasks meaningless until a bandwidth appeared, and to make bandwidth
> > appear, you'd have to stop the world, distribute, continue, no?
> > 
> > The current "just say no" seems a lot more sensible.
> > 
> 
> I just realized we allow removing/adding controllers from/to cgroups
> while there are tasks in them, which isn't safe unless we eliminate all
> can_attach callbacks. We've done so for some cgroup subsystems, but
> there are still a few of them...

I was pondering the future (or so I thought), but seems it turned into
the past while I wasn't looking.  Oh well, you found a bug anyway.

	-Mike

--
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/