linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix numabalancing to work with isolated cpus

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:   Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:47:57 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix numabalancing to work with isolated cpus

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:42:04PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:

> Is this something dictated by usecases which rely on isolcpus or rather
> nobody bothered to implement one scheduling domain?

Its from the original use-case I suspect. It was done very much on
purpose.

If you want bigger partitions use cpusets. Or rather, like I've been
saying for many years, use cpusets for everything and kill isolcpus.

Problem with that last part is cgroups.. you then need to make a !root
cgroup the 'default' cgroup in order to represent that.

I really should've done this before all that cgroup crap came along, too
late now :/