linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] sched: Minimize the idle cpu selection race window.

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: <1511866151.8472.51.camel@gmx.de>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:49:11 +0100
From:   Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Cc:     Atish Patra <atish.patra@...cle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <brendan.jackman@....com>,
        Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] sched: Minimize the idle cpu selection race
 window.

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.

	-Mike