linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 20/23] sched/cache: Add user control to adjust the parameters of cache-aware scheduling

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: <5918a462-583f-4b5a-9a57-f0fee3af1c6b@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 21:39:22 +0800
From: "Chen, Yu C" <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
To: Vern Hao <haoxing990@...il.com>
CC: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Dietmar Eggemann
	<dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ben Segall
	<bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Valentin Schneider
	<vschneid@...hat.com>, Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>, "Hillf
 Danton" <hdanton@...a.com>, Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>,
	"Jianyong Wu" <jianyong.wu@...look.com>, Yangyu Chen <cyy@...self.name>,
	Tingyin Duan <tingyin.duan@...il.com>, Vern Hao <vernhao@...cent.com>, Len
 Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>, Zhao Liu
	<zhao1.liu@...el.com>, Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@...il.com>, Adam Li
	<adamli@...amperecomputing.com>, Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@...edance.com>, Tim Chen
	<tim.c.chen@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tim Chen
	<tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, "Gautham
 R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>, K Prateek Nayak
	<kprateek.nayak@....com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, "Ingo
 Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 20/23] sched/cache: Add user control to adjust the
 parameters of cache-aware scheduling

On 12/19/2025 12:14 PM, Vern Hao wrote:
> 
> On 2025/12/4 07:07, Tim Chen wrote:
>> From: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>

> the range of llc_aggr_tolerance is [0, 100], so a little bug here? maybe 
> check if (llc_aggr_tolerance >= 100)
> 
> and if llc_aggr_tolerance = 0, the func return 0, it means 
> exceed_llc_capacity & exceed_llc_nr always true, there maybeinconsistent 
> to have this value set while |llc_enable=1| is set.
> 

I see your point. The original idea was that llc_aggr_tolerance and 
llc_enable
work together (independently) to determine whether cache-aware 
scheduling should
be enabled.  That is to say, llc_enable was not supposed be used as an
indicator for users to query whether the actual cache-aware scheduling 
is enabled.
Let me check if we can reset llc_enable if llc_aggr_tolerance is 0.

thanks,
Chenyu