linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] cpuset: remove sched domain hooks from cpusets

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]

Message-ID: <4537D6E8.8020501@google.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:50:00 -0700
From:	Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
CC:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, akpm@...l.org, menage@...gle.com,
	Simon.Derr@...l.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dino@...ibm.com,
	rohitseth@...gle.com, holt@....com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	suresh.b.siddha@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] cpuset: remove sched domain hooks from cpusets

> I don't know of anyone else using cpusets, but I'd be interested to know.

We (Google) are planning to use it to do some partitioning, albeit on
much smaller machines. I'd really like to NOT use cpus_allowed from
previous experience - if we can get it to to partition using separated
sched domains, that would be much better.

 From my dim recollections of previous discussions when cpusets was
added in the first place, we asked for exactly the same thing then.
I think some of the problem came from the fact that "exclusive"
to cpusets doesn't actually mean exclusive at all, and they're
shared in some fashion. Perhaps that issue is cleared up now?
/me crosses all fingers and toes and prays really hard.

M.
-
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/