linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Scheduler time extension

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: <64A20C52-04E6-4648-A17B-FF9CAFBC5F32@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 17:21:24 +0000
From: Prakash Sangappa <prakash.sangappa@...cle.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com" <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
	<bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Scheduler time extension

Resending - as the previous email did not make it to the mailing list.

> On Apr 14, 2025, at 9:41 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 20:54:14 +0000
> Prakash Sangappa <prakash.sangappa@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
>>> On Mar 22, 2025, at 3:14 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 16:10:09 +0000
>>> Prakash Sangappa <prakash.sangappa@...cle.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> How do we proceed on this feature? 
>>>> Are we leaning towards enabling this feature for SCHED_OTHER only under PREEMPT_LAZY?  
>>> 
>>> The merge window is about to open and I'm way behind in what needs to go in.
>>> 
>>> Let's continue this discussion after rc1 comes out.  
>> 
>> Can the API be finalized? We have an use case which will benefit from it. So like to see this feature
>> merged.
> 
> I'm still not for SCHED_OTHER tasks being allowed to delay RT or deadline
> tasks, even for 5us. But if that's what Peter wants, I'm not going to nack
> it.
> 
> Just keep it configurable so that it can be easily disabled, as I have no
> intentions of using it.
> 

Ok, could we add a CONFIG_ option to choose this feature or are you suggesting disabling with a tunable?
Also make the delay a tunable? Caped at 50us.

Will send out an updated patch.

-Prakash


> -- Steve