linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] time/tick-sched: idle load balancing when nohz

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: <CAM7-yPRjjCS7VDz5-X4Z5gBCymoCMxGc+okL7+2WZiHM7D0C_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 17:12:33 +0100
From: Yun Levi <ppbuk5246@...il.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, 
	Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@...byteword.org>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, 
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, anna-maria@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, 
	tglx@...utronix.de, Markus.Elfring@....de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] time/tick-sched: idle load balancing when nohz_full
 cpu becomes idle.

> > Yes, but stronger, as long as the CPU is part of a load-balance domain,
> > it must not disable the tick while running anything.
> >
> > that is, NOHZ_FULL must not become active unless it's running on a
> > single CPU partition.
>
> I like the idea but I'm afraid to introduce regressions while doing so,
> with people currently using nohz_full without proper partionning...

But I wonder when nohz_full cpu enters *idle".

If the cpuidle governor selects an idle state which wants "stop_tick",
If nohz_full cpu is still in sched domain, should it disable tick or not?