linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] xen: if on Xen, "flatten" the scheduling domain 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]

Message-ID: <56018050.1010009@citrix.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:22:40 +0100
From:	George Dunlap <george.dunlap@...rix.com>
To:	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
	Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@...rix.com>
CC:	"xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	"Andrew Cooper" <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David Vrabel" <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] xen: if on Xen, "flatten" the scheduling
 domain hierarchy

On 09/22/2015 05:42 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> One other thing I just discovered: there are other consumers of the
> topology sibling masks (e.g. topology_sibling_cpumask()) as well.
> 
> I think we would want to avoid any optimizations based on those in
> drivers as well, not only in the scheduler.

I'm beginning to lose the thread of the discussion here a bit.

Juergen / Dario, could one of you summarize your two approaches, and the
(alleged) advantages and disadvantages of each one?

Thanks,
 -George
--
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/