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:   Fri, 26 Jul 2019 22:01:49 +0200
From:   luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     mingo@kernel.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        bristot@redhat.com, balsini@android.com, dvyukov@google.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, vpillai@digitalocean.com, rostedt@goodmis.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/13] SCHED_DEADLINE server infrastructure
Message-ID: <20190726220149.6f05f8df@sweethome>
In-Reply-To: <20190726145409.947503076@infradead.org>
References: <20190726145409.947503076@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Peter,

On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 16:54:09 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> So recently syzcaller ran into the big deadline/period issue (again),
> and I figured I should at least propose a patch that puts limits on
> that -- see Patch 1.
> 
> During that discussion; SCHED_OTHER servers got mentioned (also
> again), and I figured I should have a poke at that too. So I took
> some inspiration from patches Alessio Balsini send a while back and
> cobbled something together for that too.

I think Patch 1 is a very good idea!

The server patches look interesting (and they seem to be much simpler
than our patchset :). I need to have a better look at them, but this
seems to be very promising.


			Thanks,
				Luca


> 
> Included are also a bunch of patches I did for core scheduling (2-8),
> which I'm probably going to just merge as they're generic cleanups.
> They're included here because they make pick_next_task() simpler and
> thereby thinking about the nested pick_next_task() logic inherent in
> servers was less of a head-ache. (I think it can work fine without
> them, but its easier with them on)
> 
> Anyway; after it all compiled it booted a kvm image all the way to
> userspace on the first run, so clearly this code isn't to be trusted
> at all.
> 
> There's still lots of missing bits and pieces -- like changelogs and
> the fair server isn't configurable or hooked into the bandwidth
> accounting, but the foundation is there I think.
> 
> Enjoy!
>