Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sun, 16 Oct 2022 16:48:09 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Connor O'Brien <connoro@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com,
        John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
        Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>, youssefesmat@google.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 07/11] sched: Add proxy execution
Message-ID: <20221016164809.6cd6871f@rorschach.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <Y0q7TyEWco/PfOAI@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20221003214501.2050087-1-connoro@google.com>
        <20221003214501.2050087-8-connoro@google.com>
        <Y0YeUhDZWb49mpLo@google.com>
        <Y0q7TyEWco/PfOAI@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 15:53:19 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> >From this it is easy to see that the critical secion executes with the  
> direct sum of the blockchain as a whole (all of them will have donated
> their relative time to make the owner elegible again) -- provided the
> critical section is of course long enough for this to matter (or it's
> owner's weight small enough etc..).

Does this mean that a lower priority task could do a sort of DOS attack
on a high priority task, if it creates a bunch of threads that
constantly grabs a shared lock from the higher priority task? That is,
the higher priority task could possibly lose a lot of its quota due to
other tasks running on its behalf in the critical section?

-- Steve