linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched: introduce synchronized idle injection

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: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1511201032300.3989@nanos>
Date:	Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:45:14 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched: introduce synchronized idle injection

On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 05:24:07PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > I would consider it an
> > emergency-only mechanism (as in emergency brake) that isn't really
> > suitable for normal thermal management. In which case: Does this sort of
> > mechanism belong in the scheduler code?
> 
> I would prefer it not to be, but Thomas is very much opposed to teaching
> the nohz code to 'work' on !idle threads.

The whole concept of faking idle is simply crap.

If you want to avoid that stuff in the scheduler, then create a
mechanism which just defers the next timer interrupt for X
milliseconds and does not any fiddling with NOHZ state and such.

That might hurt RT tasks, but if someone really cares about real-time
and deterministic behaviour, then running the machine on its thermal
limits is simply stupid. In fact any sensible RT system will bring
itself into a safe state way before the machine runs into that
condition.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/