linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4

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: <CAJGSLMtnxSqKvu3C7WQhMUUbzRXmfU1MVyLz8GcAQcAscdaZdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Nov 2019 09:35:38 -0700
From:   Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...omium.org>
To:     Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>
Cc:     Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>,
        Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4

On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 7:03 AM Vineeth Remanan Pillai
<vpillai@...italocean.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> > Unless I'm mistaken 7 of the first 8 of these went into sched/core
> > and are now in linux (from v5.4-rc1). It may make sense to rebase on
> > that and simplify the series.
> >
> Thanks a lot for pointing this out. We shall test on a rebased 5.4 RC
> and post the changes soon, if the tests goes well. For v3, while rebasing
> to an RC kernel, we saw perf regressions and hence did not check the
> RC kernel this time. You are absolutely right that we can simplify the
> patch series with 5.4 RC.

Has anyone considering shipping a V1 implementation which just allows
threads from the same process to share a core together? And then
iterating on that? Would that be simpler to implement or do the same
fundamental problems exist as tagging arbitrary processes with
cookies?

Regards,

Greg Kerr

>
>
> Thanks
> Vineeth