linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/7] sched_ext: Add an event, SCX_EVENT_RQ_BYPASSING

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: <Z4qB-7OYI4NjPayc@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:14:51 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>
Cc: void@...ifault.com, arighi@...dia.com, kernel-dev@...lia.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] sched_ext: Add an event, SCX_EVENT_RQ_BYPASSING_OPS

Hello,

On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 04:31:55PM +0900, Changwoo Min wrote:
...
> For the number of times the bypassing mode activated, what about
> BYPASS_NR_ACTIVATED?
> 
> For the number of task dispatched,what about
> BYPASS_NR_TASK_DISPATCHED?

Those names are fine but we used simple imperatives for other names, so the
followings might be more consistent:

- BYPASS_ACTIVATE
- BYPASS_DISPATCH

> I think BYPASS_NR_ACTIVATED and BYPASS_NR_TASK_DISPATCHED will be
> a good proxy for the total duration, so we can skip it until we
> have a clear user case. If we need the total duration now (maybe
> BYPASS_DURATION?), we can directly measure it in the
> scx_ops_bypass() directly. What do you think?

I think it'd be a useful counter to have and measuring from scx_ops_bypass()
makes sense to me.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun