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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YyioChBV2ecBw/vg@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2022 07:34:02 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com,
        vschneid@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        parth@...ux.ibm.com, qais.yousef@....com, chris.hyser@...cle.com,
        valentin.schneider@....com, patrick.bellasi@...bug.net,
        David.Laight@...lab.com, pjt@...gle.com, pavel@....cz,
        qperret@...gle.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, joshdon@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/8] sched/fair: Add sched group latency support

Hello,

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 01:55:15PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> s/valentin.schneider@....com//
> 
> On 16/09/2022 10:03, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Task can set its latency priority, which is then used to decide to preempt
> > the current running entity of the cfs, but sched group entities still have
> > the default latency offset.
> > 
> > Add a latency field in task group to set the latency offset of the
> > sched_eneities of the group, which will be used against other entities in
> 
> s/sched_eneities/sched_entity
> 
> > the parent cfs when deciding which entity to schedule first.
> 
> So latency for cgroups does not follow any (existing) Resource
> Distribution Model/Scheme (Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst)?
> Latency values are only used to compare sched entities at the same level.

I think it'd still result in a hierarchical behavior as scheduling is done
recursively top-down. Right, vincent?

It doesn't fit any of the resource distribution model. But it's rather
difficult to map latencies to existing concepts of resources and we have a
precedence in the cpu controller (.idle) which behaves similarly, so as long
as the behavior is hierarchical, I think it's okay.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ