linux-kernel - Re: [RFC,v2 3/3] sched: ignore task_h_load for CPU_NEWLY

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+KHdyVM+U-SA-6R9zU1t3SR44L3uMbXKMuwSk4XLo3JpkVZDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:28:34 +0100
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Uladzislau 2 Rezki <uladzislau2.rezki@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC,v2 3/3] sched: ignore task_h_load for CPU_NEWLY_IDLE

>>
>> So that is useful information that should have been in the Changelog.
>>
>> OK, can you respin this patch with adjusted Changelog and taking Mike's
>> feedback?
>>
> Yes, i will prepare a patch accordingly, no problem.
>
>>
>> Also, I worry about the effects of this on !PREEMPT kernels, the first
>> hunk (which explicitly states is about latency) should be under
>> CONFIG_PREEMPT to match the similar case we already have in
>> detach_tasks().
>>
>> But your second hunk, which ignores the actual load of tasks in favour
>> of just moving _something_ already, is utterly dangerous if not coupled
>> with these two other conditions, so arguably that too should be under
>> CONFIG_PREEMPT.
>>
> I see your point. Will round both with CONFIG_PREEMPT.
>
I have upload a new patch, please find it here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/14/334

-- 
Uladzislau Rezki