linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/wait: Break up long wake list walk

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: <20170818195858.GP28715@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:58:58 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/wait: Break up long wake list walk

> which is hacky, but there's a rationale for it:
> 
>  (a) avoid the crazy long wait queues ;)
> 
>  (b) we know that migration is *supposed* to be CPU-bound (not IO
> bound), so yielding the CPU and retrying may just be the right thing
> to do.

So this would degenerate into a spin when the contention is with
other CPUs? 

But then if we guarantee that migration has flat latency curve
and no long tail it may be reasonable.

If the contention is with the local CPU it could cause some
unfairness (and in theory priority inheritance issues with local
CPU contenders?), but hopefully not too bad.

-Andi