linux-kernel - Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER

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]

Date:	Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:09:04 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org, raziebe@...il.com,
	maximlevitsky@...il.com, cfriesen@...tel.com, efault@....de,
	riel@...hat.com, wiseman@...s.biu.ac.il,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:

> All I've seen is "I want 100% access to a CPU".  That's not a problem
> statement - it's an implementation.

Maybe. But its a problem statement that I have seen in various industries.
Multiple kernel hacks exist to do this in more or less contorted way. We
already have Linux scheduler functionality that does partially what is
needed.

See the

	isolcpus

kernel parameter. isolcpus does not switch off OS sources of noise
but it takes the processor away from the scheduler. We need a harder form of
isolation where the excluded processors offer no OS services at all.

> What is the problem statement?

My definition (likely not covering all that the author of this patchset
wants):

How to make a processor in a multicore system completely
available to a process.
--
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/