Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:42:55 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Greg Kerr <kerrnel@google.com>
Cc:     mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com,
        fweisbec@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/16] sched: Core scheduling
Message-ID: <20190220094255.GE32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190218165620.383905466@infradead.org>
 <CAJGSLMt_X97Ux=1YiZcXWXvBy4n=ExO=2yAJhfbvxDh+wnWPvQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJGSLMt_X97Ux=1YiZcXWXvBy4n=ExO=2yAJhfbvxDh+wnWPvQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 02:07:01PM -0800, Greg Kerr wrote:
> Thanks for posting this patchset Peter. Based on the patch titled, "sched: A
> quick and dirty cgroup tagging interface," I believe cgroups are used to
> define co-scheduling groups in this implementation.
> 
> Chrome OS engineers (kerrnel@google.com, mpdenton@google.com, and
> palmer@google.com) are considering an interface that is usable by unprivileged
> userspace apps. cgroups are a global resource that require privileged access.
> Have you considered an interface that is akin to namespaces? Consider the
> following strawperson API proposal (I understand prctl() is generally
> used for process
> specific actions, so we aren't married to using prctl()):

I don't think we're anywhere near the point where I care about
interfaces with this stuff.

Interfaces are a trivial but tedious matter once the rest works to
satisfaction.

As it happens; there is actually a bug in that very cgroup patch that
can cause undesired scheduling. Try spotting and fixing that.

Another question is if we want to be L1TF complete (and how strict) or
not, and if so, build the missing pieces (for instance we currently
don't kick siblings on IRQ/trap/exception entry -- and yes that's nasty
and horrible code and missing for that reason).

So first; does this provide what we need? If that's sorted we can
bike-shed on uapi/abi.