linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] sched: define TIF_ALLOW

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: <87edisibrp.fsf@oracle.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Sep 2023 17:57:14 -0700
From:   Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        willy@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        jon.grimm@....com, bharata@....com, raghavendra.kt@....com,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        jgross@...e.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] sched: define TIF_ALLOW_RESCHED


Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:

> On Tue, Sep 19 2023 at 14:30, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 18 2023 at 18:57, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> Anyway, I'm definitely not opposed. We'd get rid of a config option
>>> that is presumably not very widely used, and we'd simplify a lot of
>>> issues, and get rid of all these badly defined "cond_preempt()"
>>> things.
>>
>> Hmm. Didn't I promise a year ago that I won't do further large scale
>> cleanups and simplifications beyond printk.
>>
>> Maybe I get away this time with just suggesting it. :)
>
> Maybe not. As I'm inveterate curious, I sat down and figured out how
> that might look like.
>
> To some extent I really curse my curiosity as the amount of macro maze,
> config options and convoluted mess behind all these preempt mechanisms
> is beyond disgusting.
>
> Find below a PoC which implements that scheme. It's not even close to
> correct, but it builds, boots and survives lightweight testing.

Whew, that was electric. I had barely managed to sort through some of
the config maze.
>From a quick look this is pretty much how you described it.

> I did not even try to look into time-slice enforcement, but I really want
> to share this for illustration and for others to experiment.
>
> This keeps all the existing mechanisms in place and introduces a new
> config knob in the preemption model Kconfig switch: PREEMPT_AUTO
>
> If selected it builds a CONFIG_PREEMPT kernel, which disables the
> cond_resched() machinery and switches the fair scheduler class to use
> the NEED_PREEMPT_LAZY bit by default, i.e. it should be pretty close to
> the preempt NONE model except that cond_resched() is a NOOP and I did
> not validate the time-slice enforcement. The latter should be a
> no-brainer to figure out and fix if required.

Yeah, let me try this out.

Thanks
Ankur