linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over

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: <20071029154854.81fd606d.pj@sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:48:54 -0700
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc:	Lee.Schermerhorn@...com, rientjes@...gle.com, clameter@....com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option

> So the user space asks for 8 nodes because it knows the machine
> has that many from /sys and it only gets 4 if a cpuset says so? That's
> just bad semantics. And is not likely to make the user programs happy.

That's no different than what can happen today -- if a task actually
is in an 8 node cpuset, sets up its mempolicies accordingly, and then
gets shoe horned into a 4 node cpuset.

It's not good or bad; it's just interactions between two mechanisms.

If your app doesn't run well in a small cpuset, don't run it there
(or do run it there, poorly ;).

-- 
                  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/