linux-kernel - Re: Using cpusets for configuration/isolation [Was Re: RT sched: cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root

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: <49243F7C.9090109@qualcomm.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:31:56 -0800
From:	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Nish Aravamudan <nish.aravamudan@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Using cpusets for configuration/isolation [Was Re: RT sched:
 cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root_domain and no load balance]



Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com> wrote:
> 
>> What you described is almost exactly what I did in my original cpu 
>> isolation patch, which did get NAKed :). Basically I used global 
>> cpu_isolated_map and exposed 'isolated' bit, etc.
> 
> Please extend cpusets according to the plan outlined by PeterZ a few 
> months ago - that's the right place to do partitioning.

Already did. It's all in mainline. The part you quoted was just pointing out
that the original approach was not correct.

Max
--
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/