linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 14/15] rv: Add deadline monitors

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: <5df16facba05b84857ad09cee12df0c19a551285.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 12:35:10 +0100
From: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Nam
 Cao	 <namcao@...utronix.de>, Juri Lelli <jlelli@...hat.com>, Jonathan
 Corbet	 <corbet@....net>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, 
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Peter
 Zijlstra	 <peterz@...radead.org>, Tomas Glozar <tglozar@...hat.com>, Clark
 Williams	 <williams@...hat.com>, John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 14/15] rv: Add deadline monitors

On Mon, 2026-01-19 at 12:04 +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Why use pi_of() in above cases?
> 
> For the first, in case the macro is called while the task is actually
> boosted, we then might continue to use that even after such task gets
> deboosted?

Mmh, yeah thinking about it again it doesn't make much sense considering we are
not tracking when a task is deboosted, unless that always corresponds to a
replenish. Thought that doesn't seem the case..

> For the second, current PI implementation (even if admittedly not ideal)
> uses donor's static dl_runtime to replenish boosted task runtime, but
> then accounting is performed again the task dynamic runtime, not the
> donor's (this all will hopefully change soon with proxy exec..)?

At this point I should probably just ignore the pi_of() right?
I'm assuming the original (non-boosted) parameters are more conservative anyway
so it shouldn't be a problem for the model.

Thanks,
Gabriele