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: <CAFTL4hzJSc1PbNaZ3AFEi_Wn=80SDn0tbNXZFm_EzGr24a74-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2017 19:33:22 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, cmetcalf@...lanox.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com, riel@...hat.com,
        cl@...ux.com, 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 19:06 UTC+02:00, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>:
>
> * Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Since it was the last commit in tip:sched/core that was pushed out just
> hours ago
> I zapped that last commit, please send an updated patch which we can apply
> and get
> a clean series.
>
> Thanks,

Note the issue was there before that patch. But nevermind  I'll resend
an updated version of the patch.

Thanks.