linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Cpuset: explicit dynamic sched domain control flags

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

Message-Id: <20061018232806.a6145f0f.pj@sgi.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:28:06 -0700
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	dino@...ibm.com
Cc:	suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, menage@...gle.com, Simon.Derr@...l.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mbligh@...gle.com,
	rohitseth@...gle.com, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Cpuset: explicit dynamic sched domain control flags

Dinakar wrote:
> IMO this change is counter intuitive and pointless

If we intend to make the cpuset to sched_domain interaction
functional, something like this was needed.

However I am now leaning toward thinking that the entire
effort to manipulate sched_domain definitions by cpusets
(the cpu_exclusive flag) has been counter intuitive, and
is borked.

So I will be sending out patches to remove it, and replace
with a trivial mechanism to allow for runtime manipulation
of the cpu_isolated_map.

Coming soon ...

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/