linux-kernel - Re: [Documentation] State of CPU controller in cgroup v2

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: <20160916075137.GK5012@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 16 Sep 2016 09:51:37 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, kernel-team@...com,
        "open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [Documentation] State of CPU controller in cgroup v2

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:08:07PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> BTW, Mike keeps mentioning exclusive cgroups as problematic with the
> no-internal-tasks constraints.  Do exclusive cgroups still exist in
> cgroup2?  Could we perhaps just remove that capability entirely?  I've
> never understood what problem exlusive cpusets and such solve that
> can't be more comprehensibly solved by just assigning the cpusets the
> normal inclusive way.

Without exclusive sets we cannot split the sched_domain structure.
Which leads to not being able to actually partition things. That would
break DL for one.