linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] sched: Add laziest preempt model

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: <87ed4qu107.ffs@tglx>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2024 16:23:36 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
 mingo@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
 juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
 dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
 mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com, ankur.a.arora@...cle.com,
 efault@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] sched: Add laziest preempt model

On Mon, Oct 07 2024 at 09:46, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Much like LAZY, except lazier still. It will not promote LAZY to full
> preempt on tick and compete with None for suckage.
>
> (do we really wants this?)

Just to prove how bad NONE is without cond_resched() ?

I'm sure we can do without that experiment.

Thanks,

        tglx