linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 5/6] mm: make vmstat

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1205081033450.27713@router.home>
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2012 10:34:25 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>,
	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/6] mm: make vmstat_update periodic run conditional

On Tue, 8 May 2012, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:

> > But this would still mean that the vmstat update thread would run on an
> > arbitrary cpu. If I have a sacrificial lamb processor for OS processing
> > then I would expect the vmstat update thread to stick to that processor
> > and avoid to run on the other processor that I would like to be as free
> > from OS noise as possible.
> >
>
> OK, what about -
>
> - We pick a scapegoat cpu (the first to come up gets the job).
> - We add a knob to let user designate another cpu for the job.
> - If scapegoat cpus goes offline, the cpu processing the off lining is
> the new scapegoat.
>
> Does this makes better sense?

Sounds good. The first that comes up. If the cpu is isolated then the
first non isolated cpu is picked.

--
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/