linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/3] Introduce per-task latency

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 8 Dec 2019 11:27:58 +0530
From:   Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        patrick.bellasi@...bug.net, qais.yousef@....com, pavel@....cz,
        dhaval.giani@...cle.com, qperret@...rret.net,
        David.Laight@...LAB.COM, morten.rasmussen@....com, pjt@...gle.com,
        tj@...nel.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Introduce per-task latency_tolerance for scheduler
 hints



On 12/6/19 6:01 PM, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 05.12.19 18:13, Parth Shah wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/5/19 7:33 PM, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>>> On 05/12/2019 11:49, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>>>  
>>>> On 05/12/2019 09:24, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>>>>> On 25/11/2019 10:46, Parth Shah wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> OK, I went through this thread again. So Google or we have to provide
>>> the missing per-taskgroup API via cpu controller's attributes (like for
>>> uclamp) for the EAS usecase.
>>
>> I suppose many others (including myself) will also be interested in having
>> per-taskgroup attribute via CPU controller.
> 
> Ok, let us have a look since Android needs it.
> 
> [...]
> 
>> I kept choosing appropriate name and possible values for this new attribute
>> in the separate thread. https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/30/215
>> From which discussion, looking at Patrick's comment
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/18/678 I thought of picking latency_tolerance
>> as the appropriate name.
>> Still will be happy to change as per the community needs.
> 
> Yeah, SCHED_FLAG_LATENCY_TOLERANCE seems to be pretty long.
> 

Hi, I'm thinking of sending v2 for the patch series and for the sake of
continuity, I will maintain the name as it is because I'm expecting further
response from other developers for the latency_nice. Will re-spin the
series with new name if people agrees upon.


Best,
Parth