linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] sched/deadline: Deferrable dl server

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: <20230906200406.GF28278@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 6 Sep 2023 22:04:06 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
Cc:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        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>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>,
        Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@...byteword.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] sched/deadline: Deferrable dl server

On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 04:58:11PM +0200, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:

> > So one thing we could do is have update_curr_fair() decrement
> > fair_server's runtime and yield the period then it hits 0 (and capping
> > it at 0, not allowing it to go negative or so).
> > 
> > That way you only force the situation when FAIR hasn't had it's allotted
> > time this perio, and only for as much as to make up for the time it
> > lacks.
> 
> We can also decrease the runtime to a negative number while in
> defer/throttle state, and let the while in replenish_dl_entity() to
> replenish with the += runtime;

Yes, but my point was that fair_server gives a lower bound of runtime
per period, more -- if available -- is fine.

If we allow negative runtime, you'll affect future periods, and that is
not desired in this case.

Or am I still confused?