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: <CABk29Ns1mV030CRtidLh42-tc-xZ8=-MWQjZs5+myZVyZpDeuw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Jun 2021 17:35:57 -0700
From:   Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        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 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: cgroup SCHED_IDLE support

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 1:21 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 04:11:32PM -0700, Josh Don wrote:
> > +static int se_is_idle(struct sched_entity *se)
> > +{
> > +     if (entity_is_task(se))
> > +             return task_has_idle_policy(task_of(se));
> > +     return cfs_rq_is_idle(group_cfs_rq(se));
> > +}
>
> I'm conflicted on this, on the one hand, since we want 'idle' to be a
> sched_entity propery, I'd say, make it a sched_entity field, OTOH,
> that's probably going to be a mess too :/
>
> Let me read more..

Yea, I see both arguments; a field probably wouldn't be that bad. In
any case, this seemed reasonable and avoids more touchpoints in
core.c, so *shrug*.