linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPU hotplug, cpusets: Fix CPU online handling related to cpusets

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:	Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:39:29 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, paul@...lmenage.org, rjw@...k.pl,
	tj@...nel.org, frank.rowand@...sony.com, pjt@...gle.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	prashanth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPU hotplug, cpusets: Fix CPU online handling
 related to cpusets

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:17:53PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 02/10/2012 10:23 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 04:52:07PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 16:11 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>
> >>>> My understanding of the code is that when a CPU is taken 
> >>>> offline, it is removed from all the cpusets and then the 
> >>>> scan_for_empty_cpusets() function is run to move tasks from 
> >>>> empty cpusets to their parent cpusets.
> >>>
> >>> Why is that done that way? offlining a CPU should be an 
> >>> invariant as far as cpusets are concerned.
> >>
> >> Can't, tasks need to run someplace. There's two choices, add a still
> >> online cpu to the now empty cpuset or move the tasks to a parent that
> >> still has online cpus.
> >>
> >> Both are destructive.
> > 
> > OK, I will ask the stupid question...  Hey, somebody has to!  ;-)
> > 
> > Would it make sense for offlining the last CPU in a cpuset to be
> > destructive, but to allow offlining of a non-last CPU to be reversible?
> > 
> > For example, assume that cpuset A has CPUs 0 and 1, and cpuset B has
> > 1, 2, and 3.  Then offlining any single CPU and then onlining it would
> > restore the cpusets to their original state.  Offlining both CPUs 0 and 1
> > would be destructive to cpuset A, so that onlining those two CPUs would
> > leave any tasks in cpuset A in some ancestor of cpuset A, and would
> > leave cpuset A with no assigned CPUs.  However, that same operation
> > (offlining both CPUs 0 and 1, then onlining them) would restore cpuset
> > B to its original state, covering CPUs 1, 2, and 3.
> 
> But how would this scheme help us? During suspend, all non-boot CPUs are
> taken offline. Which means, it would be destructive to any cpuset that
> didn't originally contain CPU0 (even when using the above scheme). So, upon
> resume, it is still not the same as how it was before suspend.

Yep, it would only help for incremental cases.  Or if all cpusets had
CPU 0 in them.  So preserving cpusets across suspend will require a
bigger hammer.

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/