linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] cpuset: cpuset irq affinities

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]

Date:	Mon, 3 Mar 2008 22:34:02 -0800
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	"Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>
Cc:	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, maxk@...lcomm.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	tglx@...utronix.de, oleg@...sign.ru, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rientjes@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] cpuset: cpuset irq affinities

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Paul Jackson <pj@....com> wrote:
> Paul M wrote:
>  > Except that this isn't currently possible if you're also trying to do
>  > memory hardwalling on those cpusets, since then sibling cpusets can't
>  > share memory nodes.
>
>  Yes, there would be interactions, on both the CPU and Memory side with
>  some second order mechanisms (hardwalls and sched domains.)
>
>  Still, I ask, where's the beef -- the real users?
>

I'm one such user who's been forced to add the mem_hardwall flag to
get around the fact that exclusive and hardwall are controlled by the
same flag. I keep meaning to send it in as a patch but haven't yet got
round to it.

Also, if you're using fake numa for memory isolation (which we're
experimenting with) then the correlation between cpu placement and
memory placement is much much weaker, or non-existent.

Paul
--
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/