linux-kernel - Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER

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]

Date:	Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:15:26 -0600
From:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
	peterz@...radead.org, raziebe@...il.com, maximlevitsky@...il.com,
	efault@....de, riel@...hat.com, wiseman@...s.biu.ac.il,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER

On 08/26/2009 02:50 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:

> What problem?
> 
> All I've seen is "I want 100% access to a CPU".  That's not a problem
> statement - it's an implementation.
> 
> What is the problem statement?

I can only speak for myself...

In our case the problem statement was that we had an inherently
single-threaded emulator app that we wanted to push as hard as
absolutely possible.

We gave it as close to a whole cpu as we could using cpu and irq
affinity and we used message queues in shared memory to allow another
cpu to handle I/O.  In our case we still had kernel threads running on
the app cpu, but if we'd had a straightforward way to avoid them we
would have used it.

Chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/