linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] isolation: 1Hz residual tick offloading v3

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

Message-ID: <1516204793.31983.39.camel@gmx.de>
Date:   Wed, 17 Jan 2018 16:59:53 +0100
From:   Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:     Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] isolation: 1Hz residual tick offloading v3

On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 08:51 -0600, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 
> > > I tried to remove isolcpus or at least change the way it works so that its
> > > effects are reversible (ie: affine the init task instead of isolating domains)
> > > but that got nacked due to the behaviour's expectations for userspace.
> >
> > So we paint ourselves into a static corner forever more, despite every
> > bit of this being all about "properties of sets of cpus", ie precisely
> > what cpusets was born to do.  That's sad, dynamic wasn't that far away.
> 
> cpusets was born in order to isolate applications to sets of processors.
> The properties of sets of cpus was not on the horizon when SGI started
> this.

Domain connectivity very much is a property of a set of CPUs, a rather
important one, and one managed by cpusets.  NOHZ_FULL is a property of
a set of cpus, thus a most excellent fit.  Other things are as well.

> We have sets of cpus associated with affinity masks in the form of bitmaps
> etc etc which is much more lightweight than having slug around the cgroup
> overhead everywhere.

What does everywhere mean, set creation time?

> A simple bitmask is much better if you have to control detailed system
> behavior for each core and are planning each processes role because you
> need to make full use of the harware resources available.

If you live in a static world, maybe.

I like the flexibility of being able to configure on the fly.  One tiny
example: for a high performance aircraft manufacturer, having military
simulation background, I know that simulators frequently have to be
ready to go at the drop of a hat, so I twiddled cpusets to let them
flip their extra fancy video game (80 cores, real controls/avionics...
"game over, insert one gold bar to continue" kind of fancy) from low
power idle to full bore hard realtime with one poke to a cpuset file.

Static may be fine for some, for others, dynamic is much better.

	-Mike