linux-kernel - Re: [v7 0/8] Reduce cross CPU IPI interference

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:	Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:33:36 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
	Kosaki Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>
Subject: Re: [v7 0/8] Reduce cross CPU IPI interference

On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 10:41 -0500, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> At Tilera we have been supporting a "dataplane" mode (aka Zero Overhead
> Linux - the marketing name).  This is configured on a per-cpu basis, and in
> addition to setting isolcpus for those nodes, also suppresses various
> things that might otherwise run (soft lockup detection, vmstat work,
> etc.).  

See that's wrong.. it starts being wrong by depending on cpuisol and
goes from there.

> The claim is that you need to specify these kinds of things
> per-core since it's not always possible for the kernel to know that you
> really don't want the scheduler or any other interrupt source to touch the
> core, as opposed to the case where you just happen to have a single process
> scheduled on the core and you don't mind occasional interrupts.

Right, so that claim is proven false I think.

>   But
> there's definitely appeal in having the kernel do it adaptively too,
> particularly if it can be made to work just as well as configuring it
> statically. 

I see no reason why it shouldn't work as well or even better.

--
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/