linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/20] sched: Handle CPU isolation on last resort fallback rq selection

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20241008105434.GA9243@willie-the-truck>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 11:54:35 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/20] sched: Handle CPU isolation on last resort
 fallback rq selection

On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 12:48:59AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> When a kthread or any other task has an affinity mask that is fully
> offline or unallowed, the scheduler reaffines the task to all possible
> CPUs as a last resort.
> 
> This default decision doesn't mix up very well with nohz_full CPUs that
> are part of the possible cpumask but don't want to be disturbed by
> unbound kthreads or even detached pinned user tasks.
> 
> Make the fallback affinity setting aware of nohz_full. This applies to
> all architectures supporting nohz_full except arm32. However this
> architecture that overrides the task possible mask is unlikely to be
> willing to integrate new development.

I'm not sure I understand this last sentence. The possible mask is
overridden for 32-bit tasks on an *arm64* kernel when running on an SoC
featuring some CPUs that can execute only 64-bit tasks. Who is unwilling
to integrate what?

Will