linux-kernel - Re: [POC][RFC][PATCH v2] sched: Extended Scheduler Time Slice

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: <bb628206-28eb-470e-aaea-0f18ce94e983@efficios.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Oct 2023 14:05:05 -0400
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>, 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,
        jon.grimm@....com, bharata@....com, raghavendra.kt@....com,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        jgross@...e.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Youssef Esmat <youssefesmat@...omium.org>,
        Vineeth Pillai <vineethrp@...gle.com>,
        Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [POC][RFC][PATCH v2] sched: Extended Scheduler Time Slice

On 2023-10-30 09:45, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 08:56:50 -0400
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
>>
>> This only works if "your" lock implementation is the only user of this
>> RSEQ feature within a process. RSEQ requires that multiple libraries can
>> share the facilities. Therefore, the rseq field should include the
>> nesting counter as part of the RSEQ ABI so various userspace libraries
>> can use it collaboratively.
>>
> 
> Then I would suggest allowing bit 31 be an "on/off" switch, and the lower
> bits to be a counter. When I first tried this with postgres, there was one
> lwlock that looked to be held for the majority of the run, so I got rid of
> the nesting. But I think a mixture of both would work, where you can have a
> nesting counter and an on/off switch with the caveat that if you use it and
> enable it, another library may disable it.

If you have the nesting counter, why do you need the explicit on/off 
switch ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com