linux-kernel - Re: [bisected] "sched: Allow per-cpu kernel threads to run on online && !active" causes warning

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: <20160817135855.GH9516@htj.duckdns.org>
Date:	Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:58:55 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [bisected] "sched: Allow per-cpu kernel threads to run on online
 && !active" causes warning

Hello, Heiko.

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:19:53AM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> I think the easiest solution would be to simply assign all cpus, for which
> we do not have any topology information, to an arbitrary node; e.g. round
> robin.
> 
> After all the case that cpus are added later is rare and the s390 fake numa
> implementation does not know about the memory topology. All it is doing is

Ah, okay, so there really is no requirement for a newly coming up cpu
to be on a specific node.

> distributing the memory to several nodes in order to avoid a single huge
> node. So that should be sort of ok.

Sounds good to me.  If that's the only purpose, we don't lose much by
round-robining the possible CPUs on boot and sticking with the
mapping.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun