linux-kernel - Re: Missing recalculation of scheduler tunables in case of cpu hot add/remove

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:	Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:28:12 +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,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Missing recalculation of scheduler tunables in case of cpu hot
 add/remove

On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 17:25 +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> > Aside from that, we probably should put an upper limit in place, as I
> > guess large cpu count machines get silly large values
> I agree to that, but in the code is already an upper limit of 
> 200.000.000 - well we might discuss if that is too low/high.

Yeah, I think we should cap it around the 8-16 CPUs.

--
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/