linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] dirty_log_perf

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: <Y0myXiIjlT8pYyr8@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Oct 2022 19:02:54 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
Cc:     "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@...el.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
        "andrew.jones@...ux.dev" <andrew.jones@...ux.dev>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] dirty_log_perf_test vCPU pinning

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 9:55 AM David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 9:34 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > > > Just curious why not re-using the existing tools (e.g. taskset) to do the pinning?
> > >
> > > IIUC, you're suggesting the test give tasks meaningful names so that the user can
> > > do taskset on the appropriate tasks?  The goal is to ensure vCPUs are pinned before
> > > they do any meaningful work.  I don't see how that can be accomplished with taskset
> > > without some form of hook in the test to effectively pause the test until the user
> > > (or some run script) is ready to continue.
> >
> > A taskset approach would also be more difficult to incorporate into
> > automated runs of dirty_log_perf_test.
> >
> > >
> > > Pinning aside, naming the threads is a great idea!  That would definitely help
> > > debug, e.g. if one vCPU gets stuck or is lagging behind.
> >
> > +1
> 
> I also like the idea.
> 
> Sean:
> Do you want a v6 with the naming patch or you will be fine taking v5,
> if there are no changes needed in v5, and I can send a separate patch
> for naming?

Definitely separate, this is an orthogonal change and I don't think there will be
any conflict.  If there is a conflict, it will be trivial to resolve.  But since
Wei provided a more or less complete patch, let's let Wei post a formal patch
(unless he doesn't want to).