linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v5 2/9] sched/deadline: improve the tracking of active utilization

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: <20170327102028.291c99f0@luca>
Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:20:28 +0200
From:   Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
        Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
        Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 2/9] sched/deadline: improve the tracking of active
 utilization

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:31:46 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:47:15 +0100
> luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it> wrote:
> 
> > Ok... Since I am not good at ascii art, would it be ok to add a
> > textual description? If yes, I'll add a comment like:
> > "
> > The utilization of a task is added to the runqueue's active
> > utilization when the task becomes active (is enqueued in the
> > runqueue), and is removed when the task becomes inactive. A task
> > does not become immediately inactive when it blocks, but becomes
> > inactive at the so called "0 lag time"; so, we setup the "inactive
> > timer" to fire at the "0 lag time". When the "inactive timer"
> > fires, the task utilization is removed from the runqueue's active
> > utilization. If the task wakes up again on the same runqueue before
> > the "0 lag time", the active utilization must not be changed and
> > the "inactive timer" must be cancelled. If the task wakes up again
> > on a different runqueue before the "0 lag time", then the task's
> > utilization must be removed from the previous runqueue's active
> > utilization and must be added to the new runqueue's active
> > utilization. In order to avoid races between a task waking up on a
> > runqueue while the "inactive timer" is running on a different CPU,
> > the "dl_non_contending" flag is used to indicate that a task is not
> > on a runqueue but is active (so, the flag is set when the task
> > blocks and is cleared when the "inactive timer" fires or when the
> > task  wakes up).  
> 
> Sure, the above is great if you never want anyone to read it ;)
> 
> Can you please break it up a little. My head starts to spin by the
> third line down.

Ok... Maybe finding a clean and understandable way to explain the
above sentence is something that can be done at the OSPM summit?



			Thanks,
				Luca