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:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:15:21 +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 Wed, 2017-11-29 at 11:41 +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:49:11AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > 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 nohz.idle_cpus_mask is set for particular CPU together with claim mask,
> it means that TIF_NEED_RESCHED is coming or is already in place. When a
> CPU hits idle_thread a claim bit gets reset and proceed to no_hz mode
> unless it runs into scheduler_ipi or so.

Which means nothing to an LB operation in progress.

But whatever, I'm not going to argue endlessly about something I think
should be blatantly obvious.  IMO, this is a couple points shy of
pointless.  That's my 'C' to this RFC in a nutshell.  I'm done.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists