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: <20080228141339.b83ae00f.pj@sgi.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:13:39 -0600
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de,
	oleg@...sign.ru, rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation

Max K wrote:
> I like the concept of the "boot" set. But we still need a separate "system"
> flag. Users should not have to move cpu back into the "boot" set to allow for
> kernel (irqs, etc) activity on it. And it's just more explicit and clear that way.

Good point -- a "boot" cpuset might be 4 CPUs out of 256 CPUs, just for running
the classic Unix load (daemons, init, login, ...).  But irq's might need to go
to most CPUs, except for some (dare I use the word) isolated CPUs.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.940.382.4214
--
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/