linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 15/16] sched/fair: Account kthread runtime debt for CFS bandwidth

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: <20220113211123.c4csxg5srmkisqwr@oracle.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jan 2022 16:11:23 -0500
From:   Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>,
        Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Steve Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 15/16] sched/fair: Account kthread runtime debt for CFS
 bandwidth

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 04:08:57PM -0500, Daniel Jordan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:18:16AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > If we're gonna do this, let's please do it right and make weight based
> > control work too. Otherwise, its usefulness is pretty limited.
> 
> Ok, understood.
> 
> Doing it as presented is an incremental step and all that's required for
> this.  I figured weight could be added later with the first user that
> actually needs it.
> 
> I did prototype weight too, though, just to see if it was all gonna work
> together, so given how the discussion elsewhere in the thread is going,
> I might respin the scheduler part of this with another use case and
> weight-based control included.
> 
> I got this far, do the interface and CFS skeleton seem sane?  Both are

s/CFS/CFS bandwidth/

> basically unchanged with weight-based control included, the weight parts
> are just more code on top.
> 
> Thanks for looking.