linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 00/60] Coscheduling for Linux

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: <1e3c2ab11320c1c2f320f9e24ac0d31625bd60e6.camel@surriel.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:40:21 -0400
From:   Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To:     "Jan H." Schönherr <jschoenh@...zon.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/60] Coscheduling for Linux

On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 18:25 +0200, Jan H. Schönherr wrote:
> On 09/14/2018 01:12 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 11:39:47PM +0200, Jan H. Schönherr wrote:
> > > 
> > > B) Why would I want this?
> > >    In the L1TF context, it prevents other applications from
> > > loading
> > >    additional data into the L1 cache, while one application tries
> > > to leak
> > >    data.
> > 
> > That is the whole and only reason you did this;
> 
> It really isn't. But as your mind seems made up, I'm not going to
> bother
> to argue.

What are the other use cases, and what kind of performance
numbers do you have to show examples of workloads where
coscheduling provides a performance benefit?

-- 
All Rights Reversed.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)