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: <20241008144049.GF14587@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 16:40:49 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: bigeasy@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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 Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 04:23:36PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 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.

There's a reason this is the very last patch :-)