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  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]
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:49:11 +0100
From:   Mike Galbraith <>
To:     Uladzislau Rezki <>
Cc:     Atish Patra <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Joel Fernandes <>,
        LKML <>,
        Brendan Jackman <>,
        Josef Bacik <>, Ingo Molnar <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] sched: Minimize the idle cpu selection race

On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 10:34 +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 07:46:30PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > My view is you're barking up the wrong tree: you're making the idle
> > data SIS is using more accurate, but I question the benefit.  That it
> > makes an imperfect placement decision occasionally due to raciness is
> > nearly meaningless compared to the cost of frequent bounce.

> Before sitting down and start testing, i just illustrated how we can
> apply claim_wake_up to ilb asking community a specific view on it:
> drawbacks, pros/cons, proposals etc.

Even if you make the thing atomic, what is ILB supposed to do, look
over its shoulder every step of the way and sh*t it's pants if somebody
touches claim_wake_up as it's about to or just after it did something?

If you intend to make all of LB race free, good luck.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists