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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:50:09 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <>
To:	Matt Fleming <>
Cc:	Vikas Shivappa <>,
	Tejun Heo <>, "Auld, Will" <>,
	Vikas Shivappa <>,
	"" <>,
	"Fleming, Matt" <>,
Subject: Re: Cache Allocation Technology Design

On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 05:03:23PM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Nov, at 02:17:14PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > I don't like extending cpusets further. Its already a weird and too big
> > controller.
> > 
> > What is wrong with having a specific CQM controller and using it
> > together with cpusets where desired?
> The specific problem that conflating cpusets and the CAT controller is
> trying to solve is that on some platforms the CLOS ID doesn't move with
> data that travels up the cache hierarchy, i.e. we lose the CLOS ID when
> data moves from LLC to L2.
> I think the idea with pinning CLOS IDs to a specific cpu and any tasks
> that are using that ID is that it works around this problem out of the
> box, rather than requiring sysadmins to configure things.

So either the user needs to set that mode _and_ set cpu masks, or the
user needs to use cpusets and set masks, same difference to me.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists