linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpusets,isolcpus: resolve conflict between cpusets and isolcpus

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: <1424744326.10678.4.camel@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2015 03:18:46 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To:	riel@...hat.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpusets,isolcpus: resolve conflict between cpusets
 and isolcpus

On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 16:45 -0500, riel@...hat.com wrote:
> Ensure that cpus specified with the isolcpus= boot commandline
> option stay outside of the load balancing in the kernel scheduler.
> 
> Operations like load balancing can introduce unwanted latencies,
> which is exactly what the isolcpus= commandline is there to prevent.
> 
> Previously, simply creating a new cpuset, without even touching the
> cpuset.cpus field inside the new cpuset, would undo the effects of
> isolcpus=, by creating a scheduler domain spanning the whole system,
> and setting up load balancing inside that domain. The cpuset root
> cpuset.cpus file is read-only, so there was not even a way to undo
> that effect.
> 
> This does not impact the majority of cpusets users, since isolcpus=
> is a fairly specialized feature used for realtime purposes.

3/3: nohz_full cpus become part of that unified isolated map?

	-Mike

--
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/