linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH updated] sched/fair: core wide cfs task priority comparison

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: <CANaguZDP3nyBdjLeeCZGoUoYk6Lf0HUv19N2Qxo4CpZfrjPZHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Apr 2020 18:26:34 -0400
From:   Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>
To:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        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>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
        "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH updated] sched/fair: core wide cfs task priority comparison

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 4:08 AM Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 05:40:45PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:

> The adjust is only needed when core scheduling is enabled while I
> mistakenly called it on both enable and disable. And I come to think
> normalize is a better name than adjust.
>
I guess we would also need to update the min_vruntime of the sibling
to match the rq->core->min_vruntime on coresched disable. Otherwise
a new enqueue on root cfs of the sibling would inherit the very old
min_vruntime before coresched enable and thus would starve all the
already queued tasks until the newly enqueued se's vruntime catches up.

Other than that, I think the patch looks good. We haven't tested it
yet. Will do a round of testing and let you know soon.

Thanks,
Vineeth