linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: introduce core_vruntime and core_min

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:   Wed, 15 Nov 2023 13:20:27 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Cruz Zhao <CruzZhao@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: introduce core_vruntime and
 core_min_vruntime

On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 07:33:40PM +0800, Cruz Zhao wrote:
> To compare the priority of sched_entity from different cpus of a core,
> we introduce core_vruntime to struct sched_entity and core_min_vruntime
> to struct cfs_rq.
> 
> cfs_rq->core->core_min_vruntime records the min vruntime of the cfs_rqs
> of the same task_group among the core, and se->core_vruntime is the
> vruntime relative to se->cfs_rq->core->core_min_vruntime.

But that makes absolutely no sense. vruntime of different RQs can
advance at wildly different rates. Not to mention there's this random
offset between them.

No, this cannot be.