linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cpuset: fix wrong calculation of relax domain level

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <487F1B38.3050100@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:13:12 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cpuset: fix wrong calculation of relax domain level

Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
> Li Zefan wrote:
>> When multiple cpusets are overlapping in their 'cpus' and hence they
>> form a single sched domain, the largest sched_relax_domain_level among
>> those should be used. But when top_cpuset's sched_load_balance is
>> set, its sched_relax_domain_level is used regardless other sub-cpusets'.
>>
>> There are several proposals to solve this:
>>
>> 1) Travel the cpuset hierarchy to find the largest relax_domain_level
>>    in rebuild_sched_domains(). But cpuset avoids hierarchy travelling
>>    when top_cpuset.sched_load_balance is set.
>>
>> 2) Remember the largest relax_domain_level when we update a cpuset's
>>    sched_load_balance, sched_relax_domain_level and cpus. This should
>>    work, but seems a bit tricky and a bit ugly. (As this patch shows)
>>
>> 3) Don't treat this as a bug, but document this behavior.
> 
> I think 1) is correct way.
> 
> There was a special short path for the top_cpuset's case, but now it is
> disappeared. I think there are no need to treat the top_cpuset as VIP,
> so 2) is excessive nurturing.
> 

If we all agree on this, I'll send a new patch to fix this.


--
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/