linux-kernel - Re: scheduling co-processors

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: <4A773FFD.4050709@tmr.com>
Date:	Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:52:29 -0400
From:	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To:	Sherif Fadel <fahmy@...edu>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: scheduling co-processors

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? If so,
> could you please inform me how one would go about this?
> 
You can look at cpu affinity and see if it does some of what you want.

> 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.
> 
> Thanks.
> 


-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
--
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/