linux-kernel - Re: [tip:sched/core] sched/isolation: Document the isolcpus= flags

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: <CAFTL4hxLPZGPgwVnoh9SrEicymA=XSVLuwCwLQiohWYOha93gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:36:33 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     cmetcalf@...lanox.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com,
        riel@...hat.com, cl@...ux.com, mingo@...nel.org, efault@....de,
        kernellwp@...il.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        lcapitulino@...hat.com, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched/isolation: Document the isolcpus= flags

2017-10-27 15:58 UTC+02:00, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 05:06:25AM -0700, tip-bot for Frederic Weisbecker
> wrote:
>> +	isolcpus=	[KNL,SMP] Isolate a given set of CPUs from disturbance.
>> +			Format: [flag-list,]<cpu-list>
>> +
>> +			Specify one or more CPUs to isolate from disturbances
>> +			specified in the flag list (default: domain):
>> +
>> +			nohz
>> +			  Disable the tick when a single task runs.
>> +			domain
>> +			  Isolate from the general SMP balancing and scheduling
>> +			  algorithms. This option is the preferred way to isolate
>> +			  CPUs from tasks.
>
> I _strongly_ object to this statement, isolcpus is _not_ the preferred
> way, cpusets are.
>
> And yes, while cpusets suffers some problems, we _should_ really fix
> those and not promote this piece of shit isolcpus crap.

I definitely agree with that so your position is a relief :-) This
patch only indented the existing parameter documentation so fixing its
content was beyond its scope. I'll send a patch to correct the text.

Thanks.