linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/11] sched_ext: Refactor consume_remote

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: <20240831234000.GB70166@maniforge>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 18:40:00 -0500
From: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: kernel-team@...a.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] sched_ext: Refactor consume_remote_task()

On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 07:33:21PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 11:05:16PM -0500, David Vernet wrote:
> ...
> > Not a functional change from the prior patch, but it occurred to me that
> > if we just deactivate like this then we'll also fire the ops.quiescent()
> > callback in dequeue_task_scx(). Should we add a check to skip the
> > dequeue callbacks if p->scx.holding_cpu >= 0?
> 
> Right, migrations shouldn't trigger quiescent / runnable events. We should
> be able to suppress based on holding_cpu and sticky_cpu. Will look into
> that.

Ah right, holding_cpu on its own is of course not enough because its
whole point is to avoid racing with actual, non-migratory dequeues.
Thanks for taking a look at that -- in the meantime, this patch LG:

Acked-by: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>

> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> tejun

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)