linux-kernel - Re: [External] : Re: [PATCH v14 4/6] locking/qspinlock: Introduce starvation avoidance into CNA

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: <20210413212203.GT3762101@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Apr 2021 14:22:03 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Alex Kogan <alex.kogan@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux@...linux.org.uk, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, will.deacon@....com,
        arnd@...db.de, longman@...hat.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
        guohanjun@...wei.com, jglauber@...vell.com,
        steven.sistare@...cle.com, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
        dave.dice@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [External] : Re: [PATCH v14 4/6] locking/qspinlock: Introduce
 starvation avoidance into CNA

> > ms granularity seems very coarse grained for this. Surely
> > at some point of spinning you can afford a ktime_get? But ok.
> We are reading time when we are at the head of the (main) queue, but
> don’t have the lock yet. Not sure about the latency of ktime_get(), but
> anything reasonably fast but not necessarily precise should work.

Actually cpu_clock / sched_clock (see my other email). These should
be fast without corner cases and also monotonic.

> 
> > Could you turn that into a moduleparm which can be changed at runtime?
> > Would be strange to have to reboot just to play with this parameter
> Yes, good suggestion, thanks.
> 
> > This would also make the code a lot shorter I guess.
> So you don’t think we need the command-line parameter, just the module_param?

module_params can be changed at the command line too, so yes.

-Andi