| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1249315182.7924.142.camel@twins> Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:59:42 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Sherif Fadel <fahmy@...edu> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: scheduling co-processors On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 18:08 +0300, Sherif Fadel wrote: > Hi, > > I have a dual-core system on which I would like to treat one processor > as a scheduling co-processor. I have already implemented some custom > scheduling policies and tested them with SMP disabled, I would not like > to see if it is possible to have the scheduling algorithm running on one > core and the scheduled tasks running on another. > > I do not know if I can somehow use cpus_allowed to restrict the kernel > to one core and the running tasks to another. Is this possible? You'd have to hot-unplug the cpus to stop them from being used. > If so, > could you please inform me how one would go about this? Write code ;-), mind you that running stuff on a cpu without the scheduler present won't allow you to run regular linux stuff. > In case you are wondering why I would need this, I am writing a bunch of > high-overhead distributed scheduling algorithms and I want to mitigate > their overhead in this way. Seems unlikely to work imho, most of the overhead is remote accesses and by moving everything to one cpu you'll incur those costs all the time. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists