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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:38:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 12/12] housekeeping: Reimplement isolcpus on housekeeping On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > I think that change is good maybe even a bugfix. I had some people be very > > surprised when they set affinities to multiple cpus and the processeds > > kept sticking to one cpu because of isolcpus. > > Those people cannot read. And no its not a bug fix. Its documented and > intended behaviour. Well the next step was to create a cgroup with those processors and suddenly load balancing worked again. This is all pretty confusing stuff. I would rather get rid of isolcpus and rely on the process affinities set to a single processor, and the removal of the this processor from all other processes as a sufficient. I think this already does the right thing. What is mentioned in the isolcpus documentation is a worry about "suboptimal scheduler performance". Could we address that issue (if it is still there) and then get rid of isolcpus?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists