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: <c573ef1a-b269-469c-a63f-6ec9c137d789@efficios.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Oct 2023 14:27:10 -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 14:19, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 14:05:05 -0400
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> 
>> If you have the nesting counter, why do you need the explicit on/off
>> switch ?
> 
> Because I gave up when I found that one of the lwlocks seemed to take a long
> time (pretty much the entire test) or I couldn't find how it was unlocked
> (the code isn't trivial).
> 
> So I just made every unlock disable the extended time slot. I need to go
> back and enable both a counter and an on/off as I now realize that the spin
> locks (called within the lwlock) will disable the extend time before the
> lwlock is released. This should work if I have the spinlocks inc and dec
> (they are straight forward and all locks are associated with an easily
> found unlock), and have the lwlock use bit 31 as an on/off switch.

This extra on/off switch appears to be working around userspace issues.

> Anyway, I would let user space decide what it wants to do, and giving it 31
> bits to say "I'm extended" and let user space come up with how it handles
> those 31 bits.

If this makes it into the RSEQ uapi, RSEQ should state how userspace
should collaborate wrt those bits (e.g. nesting counter protocol), even
though it's not a kernel ABI per se. Otherwise we'll just push this to
libc to specify this, which is odd.

Thanks,

Mathieu

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