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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <50C0E1B6.5060602@fusionio.com> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 19:19:34 +0100 From: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> CC: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <pzijlstr@...hat.com>, Ingo <mingo@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [patch,v2] bdi: add a user-tunable cpu_list for the bdi flusher threads On 2012-12-06 19:01, Tejun Heo wrote: > As for the original patch, I think it's a bit too much to expose to > userland. It's probably a good idea to bind the flusher to the local > node but do we really need to expose an interface to let userland > control the affinity directly? Do we actually have a use case at > hand? We need to expose it. Once the binding is set from the kernel side on a kernel thread, it can't be modified. Binding either for performance reasons or for ensuring that we explicitly don't run in some places is a very useful feature. -- Jens Axboe -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists