linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] sched/core: add forced idle accounting for cgroups

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 29 Jun 2022 02:57:17 +0900
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        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>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Cruz Zhao <CruzZhao@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/core: add forced idle accounting for cgroups

Hello,

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 03:35:21PM -0700, Josh Don wrote:
> > Would it make sense to namespace the name to reflect the fact that
> > this is tied to core scheduling? e.g. something like
> > core.force_idle_usec (and yeah, underscore between words, please). I
> > kinda hate that the feature is named "core". The word is so
> > overloaded.
> 
> Sure, although a namespace of "core_sched" would be a bit clearer,
> since as you point out "core" is pretty overloaded :)

Yeah, core_sched is probabaly better and hopefully it'll get better as
we get used to the name.

> Lack of underscore for forceidle was to be consistent with
> "core_forceidle_sum" being dumped from /proc/pid/sched, but I'm fine
> with it either way.
> 
> So,
> 
> core_sched.force_idle_usec ?

Yeah, that'd be my preference.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun