linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 8/8] Do not reclaim the whole CPU bandwidth

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: <20160115104937.6a11cdc4@luca-1225C>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:49:37 +0100
From:	Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 8/8] Do not reclaim the whole CPU bandwidth

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:50:04 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
[...]
> The trouble is with interfaces. Once we expose them we're stuck with
> them. And from that POV I think an explicit SCHED_OTHER server (or a
> minimum budget for a slack time scheme) makes more sense.
> 
> It provides this same information while also providing more benefit,
> no?
>From an interface point of view, I agree.

> > >That would maybe fit in nicely with the DL based FIFO/RR servers
> > >from this other pending project.
> > Yes, this reminds me about the half-finished patch for RT
> > throttling using SCHED_DEADLINE... But that patch needs much more
> > work IMHO.
> 
> IIRC two years ago at RTLWS there was a presentation that the SMP
> issues were 'solved' and they would be posting the patches 'soon'. 
Do you mean this paper?
http://retis.sssup.it/~nino/publication/rtlws14bdm.pdf

I started from that patch, and I have something that "basically works",
but I am still discussing some theoretical and implementation issues
with the paper's authors.



				Luca