linux-kernel - 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: <20081119195517.GB662@sgi.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:55:17 -0600
From:	Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>
To:	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
Cc:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: RT sched: cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root_domain and no load balance

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:49:36AM -0800, Max Krasnyansky wrote:
> I think the idea is that we want to make balancer a noop on those processors.

Ultimately, making the balancer a noop on processors with load balancing turned off would be the best solution.

> We could change cpusets code to create a root sched domain for each cpu I
> guess. But can we maybe scale cpupri some other way ?

It doesn't make sense to me that they'd have a root domain attached that spans more of the the system than that cpu.

> 
> 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/