linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/12] sched: Add locking comments to sched

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: <2025100822-drained-foe-2426@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 09:33:37 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, tj@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
	vschneid@...hat.com, longman@...hat.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
	mkoutny@...e.com, void@...ifault.com, arighi@...dia.com,
	changwoo@...lia.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	sched-ext@...ts.linux.dev, liuwenfang@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/12] sched: Add locking comments to sched_class methods

On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 09:04:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 11:54:18AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> 
> > Not for this patch, but I wondered if, while we are at it, we wanted to
> > complete documentation of these flags. My new AI friend is suggesting
> > the following, is it very much garbage? :)
> 
> Heh; its not terrible. I've been playing with local LLMs, but mostly
> I've found they struggle with getting enough context to not be utterly
> demented. And when you up the context window, they get unusable slow :/
> 
> Setting up and configuring the whole pile of subtly interlocking stacks
> of software to get anything useful out of this stuff is non-trivial (it
> reminds me of the sendmail m4 days).
> 
> > ---
> > 
> > From: Claude <claude-sonnet-4-5@...hropic.com>
> > Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2025 12:44:13 +0200
> > Subject: sched: Document remaining DEQUEUE/ENQUEUE flags
> > 
> > Complete the flag documentation by adding descriptions for the three
> > previously undocumented flags: DEQUEUE_SPECIAL, DEQUEUE_THROTTLE, and
> > ENQUEUE_INITIAL.
> > 
> > DEQUEUE_SPECIAL is used when dequeuing tasks in special states (stopped,
> > traced, parked, dead, or frozen) that don't use the normal wait-loop
> > pattern and must not use delayed dequeue.
> > 
> > DEQUEUE_THROTTLE is used when removing tasks from the runqueue due to
> > CFS bandwidth throttling, preventing delayed dequeue to ensure proper
> > throttling behavior.
> > 
> > ENQUEUE_INITIAL is used when enqueueing newly created tasks in
> > wake_up_new_task(), allowing the fair scheduler to give them preferential
> > initial placement (half vslice when PLACE_DEADLINE_INITIAL is enabled).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Claude <claude-sonnet-4-5@...hropic.com>
> > Not-so-sure-yet: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
> 
> Is this the generally acceptable form of attribution for these things?
> I'm not sure what the official guidance is on using these AI tools.
> 
> Greg, you have any insights here?

First off, Claude can NOT sign off on anything, so that's a non-starter.
All Red Hat people should know that :)

Otherwise, there is a draft of something that was going to address stuff
like this floating around by Dave Hansen, I'll go poke him to see what
the status of that is.

thanks,

greg k-h