linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] sched/fair: Add trivial fair 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]

Date:   Mon, 6 Nov 2023 15:26:52 +0100
From:   Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     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>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        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 v5 5/7] sched/fair: Add trivial fair server

On 11/6/23 15:24, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 04, 2023 at 11:59:22AM +0100, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> 
>> [ dl_server do not account for rt ]
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>> index 541d547e1019..1d7b96ca9011 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>> @@ -1382,6 +1382,13 @@ static void update_curr_dl_se(struct rq *rq, struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, s64
>>  			resched_curr(rq);
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	/*
>> +	 * The fair server (sole dl_server) does not account for real-time
>> +	 * workload because it is running fair work.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (dl_server(dl_se))
>> +		return;
>> +
>>  	/*
>>  	 * Because -- for now -- we share the rt bandwidth, we need to
>>  	 * account our runtime there too, otherwise actual rt tasks
> Should we perhaps write this like so?
> 
> 	if (dl_se == &rq->fair_server)
> 		return;

right, it is better for the next step (making it generic).

-- Daniel