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: <20091207134448.GB1005@sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 7 Dec 2009 07:44:48 -0600
From:	Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Siddha, Suresh B" <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>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] x86/apic: limit irq affinity

On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 03:12:14PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com> writes:
> 
> >> > > As a matter of fact, driver's allocating rings, buffers, queues on other nodes should optimally be made aware of the restriction.
> >> > 
> >> > The idea is that the driver will do its memory allocations for everything 
> >> > across nodes.  When it does that, it will use the kernel interface 
> >> > (function call) to set the corresponding mask it wants for those queue 
> >> > resources.  That is my end-goal for this code.
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> OK, but we will eventually have to reject any irqbalance attempts to send irqs to restricted nodes.
> >
> > See above.
> 
> Either I am parsing this conversation wrong or there is a strong
> reality distortion field in place.  It appears you are asking that we
> depend on a user space application to not attempt the physically
> impossible, when we could just as easily ignore or report -EINVAL to.
> 
> We really have two separate problems hear.
> - How to avoid the impossible.

The kernel does need to restrict attempts at the impossible.  However I see
nothing wrong with providing apps with information as to what the impossible
actually is.

> - How to deal with NUMA affinity.
--
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/