linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 0/2] swait: add idle to make idle-hacks on kthreads explicit

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: <20170615232619.GS27288@wotan.suse.de>
Date:   Fri, 16 Jun 2017 01:26:19 +0200
From:   "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
        oleg@...hat.com, josh@...htriplett.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
        paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/2] swait: add idle to make idle-hacks on kthreads
 explicit

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:48:18AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > While reviewing RCU's interruptible swaits I noticed signals were actually
> > not expected. Paul explained that the reason signals are not expected is
> > we use kthreads, which don't get signals, furthermore the code avoided the
> > uninterruptible swaits as otherwise it would contribute to the system load
> > average on idle, bumping it from 0 to 2 or 3 (depending on preemption).
> > 
> > Since this can be confusing its best to be explicit about the requirements and
> > goals. This patch depends on the other killable swaits [0] recently proposed as
> > well interms of context. Thee patch can however be tested independently if
> > the hunk is addressed separately.
> > 
> > [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170614222017.14653-3-mcgrof@kernel.org
> 
> Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> Are you looking to push these or were you wanting me to?

I'd be happy for you to take them.

  Luis