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, 11 Jul 2014 18:39:41 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...nel.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com, oleg@...hat.com,
	sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/17] rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to
 non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:45:05PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 01:35:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:11:15PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 02:05:08PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > That would imply that all no-nohz processors are housekeeping? So all
> > > > > > processors with a tick are housekeeping?
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, now that I think about it again, I would really like to keep housekeeping
> > > > > to CPU 0 when nohz_full= is passed.
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah.
> > > > 
> > > > > > Could we make that set configurable? Ideally I'd like to have the ability
> > > > > > restrict the housekeeping to one processor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, I'm curious about your usecase. But I think we can do that. And we should.
> > > > 
> > > > The use case is pretty straightforward because we are trying to keep as
> > > > much OS noise as possible off most processors. Processor 0 is the
> > > > sacrificial lamb that will be used for all OS processing and hopefully all
> > > > high latency operations will occur there. Processors 1-X have a tick but
> > > > we still try to keep latencies sane. And then there is X-Y where tick is
> > > > off.
> > > 
> > > Ok. I don't entirely get why you need 1-X but I can easily imagine some non-latency-critical
> > > stuff running there.
> > > 
> > > Paul proposed "housekeeping=". If we ever go there, I'd rather vote for "sacrifical_lamb="
> > 
> > Given Christoph's desire for only one housekeeping CPU, I guess the
> > counting version makes the most sense, so that "housekeeping=N" designates
> > the first N non-nohz CPUs in numerical order as housekeeping CPUs.
> > If there are fewer than N non-nohz CPUs, you get a splat at boot time
> > and your request is capped at the number of non-nohz CPUs.
> > 
> > Seem reasonable?
> 
> I wonder if it's wouldn't be rather reasonable to affine housekeeping to all non-nohz-full CPUs
> by default and then people who want finergrained housekeeping can affine manually kthreads from userspace.
> 
> That implies to bind without PF_NO_SETAFFINIT but that's easy enough to do.

Works for me!

							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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists