linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: cgroup SCHED

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: <CABk29Nu=mxz3tugjhDV9xCF7DRsMi9U747H+BqubviEva36RUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Jun 2021 12:14:57 -0700
From:   Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Oleg Rombakh <olegrom@...gle.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Steve Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: cgroup SCHED_IDLE support

Hey Dietmar,

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 5:53 AM Dietmar Eggemann
<dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
>
> Any reason why this should only work on cgroup-v2?

My (perhaps incorrect) assumption that new development should not
extend v1. I'd actually prefer making this work on v1 as well; I'll
add that support.

> struct cftype cpu_legacy_files[] vs. cpu_files[]
>
> [...]
>
> > @@ -11340,10 +11408,14 @@ void init_tg_cfs_entry(struct task_group *tg, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
> >
> >  static DEFINE_MUTEX(shares_mutex);
> >
> > -int sched_group_set_shares(struct task_group *tg, unsigned long shares)
> > +#define IDLE_WEIGHT sched_prio_to_weight[ARRAY_SIZE(sched_prio_to_weight) - 1]
>
> Why not 3 ? Like for tasks (WEIGHT_IDLEPRIO)?
>
> [...]

Went back and forth on this; on second look, I do think it makes sense
to use the IDLEPRIO weight of 3 here. This gets converted to a 0,
rather than a 1 for display of cpu.weight, which is also actually a
nice property.