linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] cpuset: Add cpuset.sched_load

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: <e20484c9-e901-9737-d856-783a6eba1604@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:23:33 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...com, pjt@...gle.com, luto@...capital.net,
        efault@....de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] cpuset: Add cpuset.sched_load_balance to v2

On 03/27/2018 10:02 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 04:28:49PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Maybe we can have a different root level flag, say,
>> sched_partition_domain that is equivalent to !sched_load_balnace.
>> However, I am still not sure if we should enforce that no task should be
>> in the root cgroup when the flag is set.
>>
>> Tejun and Peter, what are your thoughts on this?
> I haven't looked into the other issues too much but we for sure cannot
> empty the root cgroup.
>
> Thanks.
>
Now, I have a different idea. How about we add a special root-only knob,
say, "cpuset.cpus.isolated" that contains the list of CPUs that are
still owned by root, but not participated in load balancing. All the
tasks in the root are load-balanced among the remaining CPUs.

A child can then be created that hold some or all the CPUs in the
isolated set. It will then have a separate root domain if load balancing
is on, or an isolated cpuset if load balancing is off.

Will that idea work?

Cheers,
Longman