linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] x86/cpu hotplug: Wake up offline CPU via mwait or nmi

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, 6 Jun 2012 16:20:55 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	"Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
	Arjan Dan De Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	x86 <x86@...nel.org>, linux-pm <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] x86/cpu hotplug: Wake up offline CPU via mwait or nmi

On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 05:46:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 07:44 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > > I don't think the isolation means userspace while(1) applications is
> > > interesting. Sure, some people do this, and we should dtrt for them, but
> > > the far more interesting case is 'regular' applications that do use
> > > system calls.
> > 
> > OK, I will bite.  What are the semantics/properties for your isolated set?
> 
> The scheduler will not place tasks from outside the set in the set and
> vice versa. Applications outside the set should not affect those in the
> set, except there where there are shared resources across the set
> boundary.
> 
> So the example of 1 process with multiple threads, some inside some
> outside have the obvious shared resource of the address space, hence TLB
> invalidates etc. will come through.

So, for example, a way of nicely partitioning the system to allow multiple
real-time applications to run without needing to do cross-partition
global priority queuing of the real-time tasks.  Cool!

> Now the kernel as a whole is also a shared resource, and this is where
> it all gets tricky, since if something inside the set ends up doing a
> memory allocation, it will have to participate in mm/ locks etc.

Yep.

> Same with RCU, if you cannot stay in an extended grace period for some
> reason or other, you have to participate in the global RCU state
> machinery.

Yep.

> But it should be so that if you don't do any of these things, you should
> also not be affected by them.
> 
> Now I realize this is a 'weak' model, but the 'strong' model proposed by
> tglx would make it impossible to run anything but the while(1) stuff,
> and that's of limited utility.

Thomas's strong model also supports a strong form of idle, as well as the
while(1) stuff, both of which have their uses.

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/