linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET v6] sched: Implement BPF extensible scheduler class

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: <87ed8sps71.ffs@tglx>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 22:56:34 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, 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, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
 andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...nel.org, joshdon@...gle.com,
 brho@...gle.com, pjt@...gle.com, derkling@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com,
 dvernet@...a.com, dschatzberg@...a.com, dskarlat@...cmu.edu,
 riel@...riel.com, changwoo@...lia.com, himadrics@...ia.fr,
 memxor@...il.com, andrea.righi@...onical.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v6] sched: Implement BPF extensible scheduler class

Linus!

On Tue, Jun 11 2024 at 14:34, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2024 at 08:13, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> This is v6 of sched_ext (SCX) patchset.
>>
>> During the past five months, both the development and adoption of sched_ext
>> have been progressing briskly. Here are some highlights around adoption:
> [...]
>
> I honestly see no reason to delay this any more. This whole patchset
> was the major (private) discussion at last year's kernel maintainer
> summit, and I don't find any value in having the same discussion
> (whether off-list or as an actual event) at the upcoming maintainer
> summit one year later, so to make any kind of sane progress, my
> current plan is to merge this for 6.11.

I was part of that discussion and sat down for quite some time with the
sched_ext people to find a constructive way out of this situation. My
memory might trick me, but I remember clearly that there was consensus
to resolve this in a constructive and collaborative way.

Unfortunately I ran out of cycles after Richmond to follow up and the
fact that Peter wrecked his shoulder and was AFK for months did not make
it any better.

However, the sched_ext people did not follow up either especially not
regarding a clean integration along the scheme I asked them for in
November. Contrary to that the series gained more ad hoc warts.

That's water under the bridge, but it clearly shows how non-constructive
this has become.

So instead of "solving" this brute force and thereby proliferating the
non-constructive situation, can you please hold off with that plan to
merge it as is and give us three month to get this onto a collaborative
and constructive track?

I can make cycles available to work with both sides to get this resolved
for the benefit of everyone.

A clean integration will help both ends and makes both the existing code
and the new code better and easier to maintain together. IIRC, that's
something you yourself asked people to do in the past.

Thanks,

	Thomas