linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] cpuset: add interface to isolated cpus

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <453C4E22.9000308@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:07:46 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
CC:	dino@...ibm.com, akpm@...l.org, mbligh@...gle.com,
	menage@...gle.com, Simon.Derr@...l.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rohitseth@...gle.com, holt@....com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] cpuset: add interface to isolated cpus

Paul Jackson wrote:
> Dinakar wrote:
> 
>>IMO this patch addresses just one of the requirements for partitionable
>>sched domains
> 
> 
> Correct - this particular patch was just addressing one of these.
> 
> Nick raised the reasonable concern that this patch was adding something
> to cpusets that was not especially related to cpusets.

Did you send resend the patch to remove sched-domain partitioning?
After clearing up my confusion, IMO that is needed and could probably
go into 2.6.19.

> So I will not be sending this patch to Andrew for *-mm.
> 
> There are further opportunities for improvements in some of this code,
> which my colleague Christoph Lameter may be taking an interest in.
> Ideally kernel-user API's for isolating and partitioning sched domains
> would arise from that work, though I don't know if we can wait that
> long.

The sched-domains code is all there and just ready to be used. IMO
using the cpusets API (or a slight extension thereof) would be the
best idea if we're going to use any explicit interface at all.

A cool option would be to determine the partitions according to the
disjoint set of unions of cpus_allowed masks of all tasks. I see this
getting computationally expensive though, probably O(tasks*CPUs)... I
guess that isn't too bad.

Might be better than a userspace interface.

-- 
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/