linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched/rt: Distribute tasks in find_lowest

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]

Date:   Tue, 21 Apr 2020 13:15:37 +0100
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>,
        Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched/rt: Distribute tasks in find_lowest_rq()

On 04/15/20 11:39, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:27:42PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 19:58:49 +0100
> > Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com> wrote:
> > 
> > > To move this forward, I would suggest renaming the current cpumask_any_*()
> > > into cpumask_first_*(), and THEN introduce the new pseudo-random
> > > ones. People are then free to hand-fix specific locations if it makes sense
> > > there, like you're doing for RT.
> > 
> > Or leave "cpumask_any()" as is, and create a new "cpumask_random()" for
> > this purpose.
> 
> Well, that's just twisting words, not sure I like that. 'Any' really
> means 'any'. So in order to preserve long term sanity, I'd vote for
> Valentin's approach of converting existing users over to first.

I have answered Valentin's email. So hopefully I have addressed the concerns.

If not, I really hate this mass conversion and I think we're better off with
the status-quo.

Thanks

--
Qais Yousef