linux-kernel - Re: CONFIG_ISOLATION=y (was: [PATCH 0/6] support "dataplane" mode for nohz

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:	Tue, 12 May 2015 14:34:40 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...hip.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CONFIG_ISOLATION=y (was: [PATCH 0/6] support "dataplane" mode
 for nohz_full)


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:10:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > So I'd vote for Frederic's CONFIG_ISOLATION=y, mostly because this 
> > is a high level kernel feature, so it won't conflict with 
> > isolation concepts in lower level subsystems such as IOMMU 
> > isolation - and other higher level features like scheduler 
> > isolation are basically another partial implementation we want to 
> > merge with all this...
> 
> But why do we need a CONFIG flag for something that has no content?
> 
> That is, I do not see anything much; except the 'I want to stay in 
> userspace and kill me otherwise' flag, and I'm not sure that 
> warrants a CONFIG flag like this.
> 
> Other than that, its all a combination of NOHZ_FULL and 
> cpusets/isolcpus and whatnot.

Yes, that's what I meant: CONFIG_ISOLATION would trigger what is 
NO_HZ_FULL today - we could possibly even remove CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL as 
an individual Kconfig option?

CONFIG_ISOLATION=y would express the guarantee from the kernel that 
it's possible for user-space to configure itself to run undisturbed - 
instead of the current inconsistent set of options and facilities.

A bit like CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is more than just preemptable spinlocks, 
it also tries to offer various facilities and tune the defaults to 
turn the kernel hard-rt.

Does that make sense to you?

Thanks,

	Ingo

--
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/