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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 19 Jan 2022 09:59:54 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <>
To:     Peter Oskolkov <>
Cc:     Peter Oskolkov <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] sched: User Mode Concurency Groups

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 10:19:21AM -0800, Peter Oskolkov wrote:

> =========== signals and the general approach
> My version of the patchset has all of these things working. What it
> does not have,
> compared to the new approach we are discussing here, is runqueues per server
> and proper signal handling (and potential integration with proxy execution).
> Runqueues per server, in the LAZY mode, are easy to emulate in my patchset:
> nothing prevents the userspace to partition workers among servers, and have
> servers that "own" their workers to be pointed at by idle_server_tid_ptr.
> The only thing that is missing is proper treating of signals. But my patchset
> does ensure a single running worker per server, had pagefaults and preemptions
> sorted out, etc. Basically, everything works except signals. This patchet
> has issues with pagefaults, 

Already fixed pagefaults per:

> worker timeouts

I still have no clear answer as to what you actually want there.

> , worker-to-worker context
> switches (do workers move runqueues when they context switch?), etc.

Not in kernel, if they need to be migrated, userspace needs to do that.

> And my patchset now actually looks smaller and simpler, on the kernel side,
> that what this patchset is shaping up to be.
> What if I fix signals in my patchset? I think the way you deal with signals
> will work in my approach equally well; I'll also use umcg_kick() to preempt
> workers instead of sending them a signal.
> What do you think? 

I still absolutely hate how long you do page pinning, it *will* wreck
things like CMA which are somewhat latency critical for silly things
like Android camera apps and who knows what else.

You've also forgotten about this:

That's not optional given how you're using page-pinning. Also, I think
we need at least one direct access to the page after getting the pin in
order to make it work.

That also very much limits it to Anon pages.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists