| 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: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0908261700260.13739@gentwo.org> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists