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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:14:10 +1000 From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com> CC: akpm@...l.org, mbligh@...gle.com, 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, clameter@....com Subject: Re: [RFC] cpuset: add interface to isolated cpus Paul Jackson wrote: > Nick wrote: > >>Or, another question, how does my patch hijack cpus_allowed? In >>what way does it change the semantics of cpus_allowed? > > > It limits load balancing for tasks in cpusets containing > a superset of that cpusets cpus. > > There are always such cpusets - the top cpuset if no other. Ah OK, and there is my misunderstanding with cpusets. From the documentation it appears as though cpu_exclusive cpusets are made in order to do the partitioning thing. If you always have other domains overlapping them (regardless that it is a parent), then what actual use does cpu_exclusive flag have? -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists