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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wix=nrfi2LkSXBvBSrTHgEAMYQebUfWXq8Q-PtH0x_SdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Sep 2023 09:00:54 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     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

Ok, I like this.

That said, this part of it:

On Wed, 20 Sept 2023 at 16:58, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> -void resched_curr(struct rq *rq)
> +static void __resched_curr(struct rq *rq, int nr_bit)
>  [...]
> -               set_tsk_need_resched(curr);
> -               set_preempt_need_resched();
> +               set_tsk_thread_flag(curr, nr_bit);
> +               if (nr_bit == TIF_NEED_RESCHED)
> +                       set_preempt_need_resched();

feels really hacky.

I think that instead of passing a random TIF bit around, it should
just pass a "lazy or not" value around.

Then you make the TIF bit be some easily computable thing (eg something like

        #define TIF_RESCHED(lazy) (TIF_NEED_RESCHED + (lazy))

or whatever), and write the above conditional as

        if (!lazy)
                set_preempt_need_resched();

so that it all *does* the same thing, but the code makes it clear
about what the logic is.

Because honestly, without having been part of this thread, I would look at that

        if (nr_bit == TIF_NEED_RESCHED)
                set_preempt_need_resched();

and I'd be completely lost. It doesn't make conceptual sense, I feel.

So I'd really like the source code to be more directly expressing the
*intent* of the code, not be so centered around the implementation
detail.

Put another way: I think we can make the compiler turn the intent into
the implementation, and I'd rather *not* have us humans have to infer
the intent from the implementation.

That said - I think as a proof of concept and "look, with this we get
the expected scheduling event counts", that patch is perfect. I think
you more than proved the concept.

                 Linus