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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 17:05:28 -0500 From: Alex Kogan <alex.kogan@...cle.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, linux@...linux.org.uk, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>, Jan Glauber <jglauber@...vell.com>, Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>, Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>, dave.dice@...cle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce starvation avoidance into CNA > On Jan 25, 2020, at 6:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 01:19:05PM -0500, Alex Kogan wrote: > >> Is there a lightweight way to identify such a “prioritized” thread? > > No; people might for instance care about tail latencies between their > identically spec'ed worker tasks. I would argue that those users need to tune/reduce the intra-node handoff threshold for their needs. Or disable CNA altogether. In general, Peter, seems like you are not on board with the way Longman suggested to handle prioritized threads. Am I right? Thanks, — Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists