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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20221002223234.GA17621@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com> Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2022 15:32:34 -0700 From: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> 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 Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 03:01:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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. This makes sense to me. I will implement as you suggest. Thanks and BR, Ricardo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists