linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] wq: Avoid using isolated cpus' timers on unbounded queue_delayed

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: <ZbGFce8ixJKb6umE@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 11:47:29 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] wq: Avoid using isolated cpus' timers on
 unbounded queue_delayed_work

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 05:29:37AM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> +	/*
> +	 * If the work is cpu-unbound, and cpu isolation is in place, only
> +	 * schedule use timers from housekeeping cpus. In favor of avoiding
> +	 * cacheline bouncing, run the WQ in the same cpu as the timer.
> +	 */
> +	if (cpu == WORK_CPU_UNBOUND && housekeeping_enabled(HK_TYPE_TIMER))
> +		cpu = housekeeping_any_cpu(HK_TYPE_TIMER);

Would it make more sense to use wq_unbound_cpumask?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun