linux-kernel - Re: task isolation discussion at Linux Plumbers

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: <20161219143728.GA3924@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Dec 2016 06:37:28 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...lanox.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Francis Giraldeau <francis.giraldeau@...il.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        boqun.feng@...il.com
Subject: Re: task isolation discussion at Linux Plumbers

On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 12:04:45AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> A bunch of people got together this week at the Linux Plumbers
> Conference to discuss nohz_full, task isolation, and related stuff.
> (Thanks to Thomas for getting everyone gathered at one place and time!)

Which reminds me...

One spirited side discussion at Santa Fe involved RCU's rcu_node tree
and CPU numbering.  Several people insisted that RCU should remap CPU
numbers to allow for interesting CPU-numbering schemes.  I resisted
this added complexity rather strenuously, but eventually said that I
would consider adding such complexity if someone provided me with valid
system-level performance data showing a need for this sort of remapping.

I haven't heard anything since, so I figured that I should follow up.
How are things going collecting this data?

							Thanx, Paul