linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation

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: <20080228075010.GA28781@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:50:11 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
	Max Krasnyanskiy <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation

* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:

> My vision on the direction we should take wrt cpu isolation.
> 
> Next on the list would be figuring out a nice solution to the 
> workqueue flush issue.

nice work Peter, i find this "system sets" extension to cpusets a much 
more elegant (and much more future-proof) solution than the proposed 
spreadout of the limited hack of isolcpus/cpu_isolated_map. It 
concentrates us on a single API and on a single mechanism to handle 
isolation matters. (be that for clustering/supercomputing or real-time 
purposes)

Thanks for insisting on using cpusets for this!

i've queued up your patches in sched-devel.git, and lets make sure this 
has no side-effects on existing functionality. (it shouldnt)

	Ingo
--
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/