linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] x86/apic: limit irq affinity

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: <20091124182059.GB11894@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:20:59 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] x86/apic: limit irq affinity


* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:

> Currently the irq code treats /proc/irq/N/smp_affinity as a strong 
> hint on where we would like interrupts to be delivered, and we don't 
> have good feedback from there to architecture specific code that knows 
> what we really can do.  It is going to take some effort and some work 
> to make that happen.
> 
> I think the irq scheduler is the only scheduler (except for batch 
> jobs) that we don't put in the kernel.  It seems to me that if we are 
> going to go to all of the trouble to rewrite the generic code to 
> better support irqbalance because we are having serious irqbalance 
> problems, it will be less effort to suck irqbalance into the kernel 
> along with everything else.
> 
> I really think irqbalancing belongs in the kernel. [...]

Interesting. I've yet to see a solution that is maintainable and works 
well, without putting too much policy into the kernel. Our previous 
solutions didnt really work all that well.

What would your model be, and can it be implemented reasonably?

	Ingo
--
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/