lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: perf: question about event scheduler
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:13:33AM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking at ctx_pinned_sched_in() and
> ctx_flexible_sched_in() and I am trying to
> understand the difference of treatment in
> case of errors for the two classes of events
> (pinned vs. flexible).
>
> For pinned events, when a group fails to
> schedule in, the code goes on to the next
> group and therefore walks the entire list
> for each scheduler invocation.
>
> For flexible events, when a group fails,
> the loop aborts and no subsequent group
> is tried.
>
> I am trying to understand the motivation for
> this difference here.
>
> If I recall, the abort is here to limit malicious
> DoS where a malicious user would provide
> an arbitrary long list of events, hogging the kernel.
> But in the case of pinned events, this is ignored
> because to create such events one needs to be
> root in the first place.
>
> Am I getting this right?

Whee, long time ago. I think the biggest reason is that pinned events
should always be scheduled. Not being able to schedule a pinned event is
an error. But yes, that and the fact that they're root only.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-23 12:41    [W:0.056 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site