linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel: allow to configure PREEMPT_NONE, PREEMPT

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: <20201009102009.GK2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:20:09 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbecker@...e.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel: allow to configure PREEMPT_NONE,
 PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY on kernel command line

On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:14:05PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 09-10-20 11:47:41, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > That is, work backwards (from PREEMPT back to VOLUNTARY) instead of the
> > other way around.
> 
> My original idea was that the config would only define the default
> preemption mode. preempt_none parameter would then just act as an
> override. That would mean that CONFIG_PREEMPTION would be effectively
> gone from the kernel. The reason being that any code outside of the
> scheduler shouldn't really care about the preemption mode. I suspect
> this will prevent from dubious hacks and provide a more robust code in
> the end.

Sure; but the way of arriving at that destination might be easier if
you work backwards from PREEMPT=y, because while there _should_ not be
dependencies outside of the scheduler, we both know there are.

This also makes your patches independent of the series that makes
CONFIG_PREEMPTION unconditional.

It also gives Kconfig space to limit the dynamic thing to archs that
have sufficient support (we'll be relying on static_call/static_branch,
and not everybody has that implemented in a way that makes it the
dynamic change worth-while).