linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpuset and sched domains: sched_load

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: <200710030525.29735.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Wed, 3 Oct 2007 05:25:29 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, menage@...gle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dino@...ibm.com, cpw@....com,
	mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuset and sched domains: sched_load_balance flag

On Wednesday 03 October 2007 21:38, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > OK, so to really do anything different (from a non-partitioned setup),
> > you would need to set sched_load_balance=0 for the root cpuset?

> > Suppose you do that to hard partition the machine, what happens to
> > newly created tasks like kernel threads or things that aren't in a
> > cpuset?
>
> Well ... --every-- task is in a cpuset, always.  Newly created tasks
> start in the cpuset of their parent.  Grep for 'the_top_cpuset_hack'
> in kernel/cpuset.c to see the lengths to which we go to ensure that
> current->cpuset always resolves somewhere.

OK, then non-balancing cpuset.


> The usual case on the big systems that I care about the most is
> that we move (almost) every task out of the top cpuset, into smaller
> cpusets, because we don't want some random thread intruding on the
> CPUs dedicated to a particular job.  The only threads left in the root
> cpuset are pinned kernel threads, such as for thread migration, per-cpu
> irq handlers and various per-cpu and per-node disk and file flushers
> and such.  These threads aren't going anywhere, regardless.  But no
> thread that is willing to run anywhere is left free to run anywhere.

These are what I'm worried about, and things like kswapd, pdflush,
could definitely use a huge amount of CPU.

If you are interested in hard partitioning the system, you most
definitely want these things to be balanced across the non-isolated
CPUs.

-
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/