linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] cpuset: 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:   Mon, 18 Jun 2018 23:07:16 +0800
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...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 v10 0/9] cpuset: Enable cpuset controller in default
 hierarchy

On 06/18/2018 10:20 PM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 18/06/18 12:13, Waiman Long wrote:
>> v10:
>>  - Remove the cpuset.sched.load_balance patch for now as it may not
>>    be that useful.
>>  - Break the large patch 2 into smaller patches to make them a bit
>>    easier to review.
>>  - Test and fix issues related to changing "cpuset.cpus" and cpu
>>    online/offline in a domain root.
>>  - Rename isolated_cpus to reserved_cpus as this cpumask holds CPUs
>>    reserved for child sched domains.
>>  - Rework the scheduling domain debug printing code in the last patch.
>>  - Document update to the newly moved
>>    Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst.
> There seem to be two (similar but different) 6/9 in the set. Something
> went wrong?

The isolated_cpus patch is old, I forgot to remove it before sending out
the patch.


> Also I can't seem to be able to create a subgroup with an isolated
> domain root. I think that, when doing the following
>
>  # mount -t cgroup2 none /sys/fs/cgroup
>  # echo "+cpuset" >/sys/fs/cgroup/cgroup.subtree_control 
>  # mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/g1
>  # echo 0-1 >/sys/fs/cgroup/g1/cpuset.cpus
>  # echo 1 >/sys/fs/cgroup/g1/cpuset.sched.domain_root
>
> rebuild_sched_domains_locked exits early, since
> top_cpuset.effective_cpus != cpu_active_mask. (effective_cpus being 2-3
> at this point since I'm testing this on a 0-3 system)
>
> In your v9 this [1] was adding a special condition to make rebuilding of
> domains happen. Was the change intentional?

Can you reply to the relevant patch to pinpoint what condition are you
talking about? I do try to eliminate domain rebuild as much as possible,
but I am just not sure which condition you have question about.

Cheers,
Longman