linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 0/7] Enable cpuset controller in default hierarchy

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]

Date:   Wed, 30 May 2018 12:13:17 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, 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,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/7] Enable cpuset controller in default hierarchy

Hi,

On 29/05/18 09:41, Waiman Long wrote:
> v9:
>  - Rename cpuset.sched.domain to cpuset.sched.domain_root to better
>    identify its purpose as the root of a new scheduling domain or
>    partition.
>  - Clarify in the document about the purpose of domain_root and
>    load_balance. Using domain_root is th only way to create new
>    partition.
>  - Fix a lockdep warning in update_isolated_cpumask() function.
>  - Add a new patch to eliminate call to generate_sched_domains() for
>    v2 when a change in cpu list does not touch a domain_root.

I was playing with this and ended up with the situation below:

 g1/cgroup.controllers:cpuset
 g1/cgroup.events:populated 0
 g1/cgroup.max.depth:max
 g1/cgroup.max.descendants:max
 g1/cgroup.stat:nr_descendants 1
 g1/cgroup.stat:nr_dying_descendants 0
 g1/cgroup.subtree_control:cpuset
 g1/cgroup.type:domain
 g1/cpuset.cpus:0-5                   <---
 g1/cpuset.cpus.effective:0-5
 g1/cpuset.mems.effective:0-1
 g1/cpuset.sched.domain_root:1        <---
 g1/cpuset.sched.load_balance:1
 g1/cpu.stat:usage_usec 0
 g1/cpu.stat:user_usec 0
 g1/cpu.stat:system_usec 0
 g1/g11/cgroup.events:populated 0
 g1/g11/cgroup.max.descendants:max
 g1/g11/cpu.stat:usage_usec 0
 g1/g11/cpu.stat:user_usec 0
 g1/g11/cpu.stat:system_usec 0
 g1/g11/cgroup.type:domain
 g1/g11/cgroup.stat:nr_descendants 0
 g1/g11/cgroup.stat:nr_dying_descendants 0
 g1/g11/cpuset.cpus.effective:0-5
 g1/g11/cgroup.controllers:cpuset
 g1/g11/cpuset.sched.load_balance:1
 g1/g11/cpuset.mems.effective:0-1
 g1/g11/cpuset.cpus:6-11              <---
 g1/g11/cgroup.max.depth:max
 g1/g11/cpuset.sched.domain_root:0

Should this be allowed? I was expecting subgroup g11 should be
restricted to a subset of g1's cpus.

Best,

- Juri