linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] preempt: Add a generic function to return the preemption string.

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: <20250109152733.VIh584yu@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 16:27:33 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] preempt: Add a generic function to return the
 preemption string.

On 2025-01-09 15:54:08 [+0100], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 03:41:24PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2025-01-09 15:37:01 [+0100], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Upgrade brain. Also the proposed thing was just plain wrong.
> > 
> > Was it?
> 
> Yes, things like:
> 
> > +             if (preempt_model_voluntary())
> > +                     return "VOLUNTARY+LAZY";
> > +             if (preempt_model_none())
> > +                     return "NONE+LAZY";
> 
> don't exist and make no sense.

point taken.

> > For the !DYNAMIC case everything should be optimized away except
> > for the current case.
> > Let me try your thing to see what is different…
> 
> For the various cases it was supposed to print something like so:
> 
> RT+DYN:	 PREEMPT_{RT,(dyn_mode)}
> RT+LAZY: PREEMPT_{RT,LAZY}
> RT+FULL: PREEMPT_RT
> 
> DYN:       PREEMPT_(dyn_mode)
> FULL:      PREEMPT
> LAZY:      PREEMPT_LAZY
> VOLUNTARY: VOLUNTARY
> NONE:      NONE

Good. I do like it. Let me make a patch.

Sebastian