| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:19:42 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Holger.Wolf@...ibm.com, epasch@...ibm.com Subject: Re: Missing recalculation of scheduler tunables in case of cpu hot add/remove On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 17:10 +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > What I consider more important at the moment is that there is no hook to > recalculate these values in case cpu hot add/remove takes place. > As an example someone could boot a machine with one online cpu and get > the low non scaled defaults, later on driven by load the system > activates more and more processors. Therefore the system could end up > having a large amount of cpus with non recalculated scheduler tunables. This is virt junk that's playing dumb games with hotplug isn't it? Normal machines simply don't change their numbers of cpus, if they hotplug its usually for things like suspend or actual replacement of a faulty piece of kit, in which case there's little point in adjusting things. Aside from that, we probably should put an upper limit in place, as I guess large cpu count machines get silly large values. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists