linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/15] x86, sched: Add config option for multi-node CPU scheduling

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: <57214.1250862635@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:50:35 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/15] x86, sched: Add config option for multi-node CPU scheduling

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:15:21 +0200, Andreas Herrmann said:
> 
> I've decided to add this as a subitem of MC scheduling.
> I think the normal case will be that a multi-node CPU has more than 1
> core on each of its nodes. Thus using MN scheduling without MC
> scheduling does not make much sense.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/Kconfig |   10 ++++++++++
>  1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

Is this patch series bisectable? I admit not having checked deeply, and
at least at first glance the rest looks sane - but usually Kconfig changes
are kept until the *last* patch so that there's no chance of inter-patch
dependencies breaking...

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped