linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/17] Paravirt CPUs and push task for less vCPU preemption

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: <4b83b443-baa8-4218-8412-ddfb0dda8ac3@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:09:21 +0530
From: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de, yury.norov@...il.com,
        maddy@...ux.ibm.com, srikar@...ux.ibm.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        seanjc@...gle.com, kprateek.nayak@....com, vschneid@...hat.com,
        iii@...ux.ibm.com, huschle@...ux.ibm.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] Paravirt CPUs and push task for less vCPU
 preemption

Hi Greg.

On 11/24/25 10:35 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 06:14:32PM +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
>> Detailed problem statement and some of the implementation choices were
>> discussed earlier[1].
>>
>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250910174210.1969750-1-sshegde@linux.ibm.com/
>>
>> This is likely the version which would be used for LPC2025 discussion on
>> this topic. Feel free to provide your suggestion and hoping for a solution
>> that works for different architectures and it's use cases.
>>
>> All the existing alternatives such as cpu hotplug, creating isolated
>> partitions etc break the user affinity. Since number of CPUs to use change
>> depending on the steal time, it is not driven by User. Hence it would be
>> wrong to break the affinity. This series allows if the task is pinned
>> only paravirt CPUs, it will continue running there.
>>
>> Changes compared v3[1]:
> 
> There is no "v" for this series :(
> 

I thought about adding v1.

I made it as PATCH from RFC PATCH since functionally it should
be complete now with arch bits. Since it is v1, I remember usually 
people send out without adding v1. after v1 had tags such as v2.

I will keep v2 for the next series.