linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Give cpusets exclusive control over sched domains (ie remove cpu_isolated

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: <20080601213533.ab1c049f.pj@sgi.com>
Date:	Sun, 1 Jun 2008 21:35:33 -0500
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, menage@...gle.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Give cpusets exclusive control over sched
 domains (ie remove cpu_isolated_map)

Max K wrote:
> Would you be ok with a patch that exposes (via sysctl
> for example) scheduler balancer mask when cpusets are disabled ?

I wasn't looking for a variant implementation.  Unless this variant
serves some critical purpose that isolcpus can't provide, I would be
against it.  I'm trying to minimize API changes to kernel users.

I am trying to discuss the reasons for or against removing isolcpus.

I just started a separate lkml thread, with a wider audience, to
address this question:

  Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option? (may have realtime uses)

-- 
                  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/