linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] trace-cmd record: add --cpu-list option

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:09:57 -0500
From:   Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] trace-cmd record: add --cpu-list option

On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:38:19 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:14:56 -0400
> Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > cpu_set(ret_mask, i) sets bits from begin to end in uint64_t cpumask
> > > from below.
> > > 
> > > What happens if this range is greater than 64? We already have boxes
> > > that run this with 80 CPUs. Looks to be out of memory range to me.    
> > 
> > The best solution is probably to detect the number of CPUs at run-time
> > and use the CPU_SET() API. The lazy and ugly solution is to just fail.
> > 
> > Any objections to the CPU_SET() solution?
> >   
> 
> I thought I replied to this, but I'm guessing the reply is still
> pending.
> 
> I have no objecting. I'd like to see a patch though.

I imagined you didn't have objections :) I haven't started working
on this yet because I'm very busy at other stuff. But I'll go
back to this soon.