linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/10] sched/debug: Increase SCHEDSTAT

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: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:50:33 +0530
From: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Swapnil Sapkal <Swapnil.Sapkal@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dietmar Eggemann
 <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] sched/debug: Increase SCHEDSTAT_VERSION to 16



On 3/15/24 2:36 PM, Swapnil Sapkal wrote:
> Hello Shrikanth,
> 
> Thank you for reviewing.
> 
> On 3/15/2024 10:07 AM, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
>>

>>> 19 20
>>> 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
>>> +domain<N> <cpumask> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
>>> 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
>>> 44 45
>>>     The first field is a bit mask indicating what cpus this domain
>>> operates
>>> over.
>>>   
>> IIUC, this is editing the content of Version 15, But changes would
>> happen on Version 16.
>> Instead can we add the section for Version 16 and not modify for 15?
> 
> This file contains the field details of current schedstat version and
> the short
> summary of what change across the versions. Maintaining each versions
> details will
> increase the file size. Instead I will add the links to previous version's
> documentation.
>  

I hadn't seen that. what you are saying is right. it would bloat up.  

> Thoughts on this?
> 
>>> -The next 24 are a variety of sched_balance_rq() statistics in grouped
>>> into types
>>> +The next 33 are a variety of sched_balance_rq() statistics in grouped
>>> into types
>>>   of idleness (idle, busy, and newly idle):

Please change this to
 of idleness (busy, idle, and newly idle): 

>>>         1)  # of times in this domain sched_balance_rq() was called
>>> when the
>>> +        cpu was busy
>>> +    2)  # of times in this domain sched_balance_rq() checked but
>>> found the
>>> +        load did not require balancing when busy