linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 01/23] sched/task_struct: Introduce classes of tasks

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: <YzL0E/8sz1viLau7@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 27 Sep 2022 15:01:07 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@...el.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Tim C . Chen" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/23] sched/task_struct: Introduce classes of tasks

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 07:41:13AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:

> At least on Intel processors, class 0 is a valid class. The scheduler needs to
> have a notion of unclassified tasks and decide how to handle them, IMO.
> 
> Intel processors currently support 8-bit, unsigned classes. I doubt other
> architectures will ever support more than 256 classes. Short can handle all the
> possible classification values and also the unclassified case.
> 
> On the other hand, class 0 could be the default classification unless hardware
> classifies differently. 0 would be special and need to be documented clearly.
> This would work for Intel processors.

You can always do: class = hw_class + 1; that makes 0 'special' and the
hardware class can be trivially reconstructed by subtracting 1.