linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] cpuset: Add knob to make allowed masks hotplug invariant on legacy hierarchy

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:	Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:03:02 -0500
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To:	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, tj@...nel.org,
	svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, nacc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	rjw@...ysocki.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	lizefan@...wei.com, anton@...ba.org, bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	mingo@...nel.org, serge@...lyn.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] cpuset: Add knob to make allowed masks hotplug
 invariant on legacy hierarchy

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 05:10:49PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> On 04/13/2015 08:13 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 05:46:37PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> >> On 04/13/2015 12:31 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> >>> Would it not make sense to make that a mount option and limit the amount
> >>> of semantic variants of cpusets?
> >>
> >> I spent some time analyzing if this would be a better option than the
> >> sysfs knob and I think not for the following reasons:
> >>
> >> 1. Mount options tend to be generic across the controllers of a cgroup.
> >> But use case addressed by this patch is specific to the cpuset controller.
> > 
> > Surely we can get around that somehow.
> > 
> >> 2. The behavior that this patch is trying to bring about is not a
> >> drastic one to call for a mount option equivalent to the __SANE_BEHAVIOR
> >> one that existed earlier. This option was used to switch the legacy
> >> design to the default one.
> >>
> >> However this patch is not *wholly* mimicking the default hierarchy
> >> behavior. The behavior when cpusets become empty is left untouched for
> >> instance. The patch borrows one of the behaviors from the default
> >> hierarchy only and hence just not justify the use of a mount flag.
> > 
> > So the 'problem' I have is that you introduce a 3rd semantic for the
> > cpuset thing.
> > 
> > You also do not answer if you can live with the default hierarchy
> > behaviour, only that your patch mimicks a subset of it.
> > 
> > Why not all of it?
> 
> This was assuming that the existing software will break if we mimick the
> entire design given that we were informed that it does not work well
> with the default hierarchy. But I think now, that its worth finding out
> why if so and switch over to the new design, atleast for cpusets.

Peter, is the question "why can't we just use the unified hierarchy for
cpusets"?
--
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/