linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Introduce housekeeping subsystem v4

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAFTL4hwNPSwk8_zz1fph-q4gg=Gj-w5=L-JiA3JOHTTwKXvZFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Oct 2017 04:42:27 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Introduce housekeeping subsystem v4

2017-10-23 14:06 UTC+02:00, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>:
>
> * Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>> In fact, CPU affinity is the only high level concept I found to gather all
>> these
>> housekeeping elements.
>>
>> Perhaps I should use "cpu_isolation" instead of "housekeeping" naming.
>
> The problem with names based on that, like cpu_isolation_map, is that
> there's
> really two concepts here: there's the isolcpus feature where the 'mask' is
> in fact
> the CPUs that are isolated - while the 'housekeeping CPUs' is the mask of
> CPUs
> that _support_ the isolated set of CPUs. The two are different roles but
> easily
> confused if named similarly.

Indeed, housekeeping is in fact the machinery that supports cpu isolation.

> So I guess 'housekeeping CPUs' is as good as it gets for now.

Agreed, And I have no doubt the concept will evolve. We can always
split it into high level concepts such as those we discussed if it
appears necessary later.

> Mind sending a refreshed queue against the latest kernel? There's some new
> conflicts in kernel/watchdog.c for example.

Sure, here is a rebase against -rc6:

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/linux-dynticks.git
    core/isolation-v5

Thanks!