linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 9/9] cpuset: Support forced turning off of partition flag

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9d356cf9-0256-338c-0854-cf52c5d0f8fe@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 16:44:22 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     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>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 9/9] cpuset: Support forced turning off of partition
 flag

On 10/02/2018 04:06 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Waiman.
>
> My apologies for the delay.
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 01:50:18PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> My current code has explicitly assumed the following relationship for
>> partition root.
>>
>>     cpus_allowed = effective_cpus + reserved_cpus
>>
>> Also effective_cpus cannot be empty. Specifically, cpus_allowed has to
>> be equal to effective_cpus before a cpuset can be made a partition root.
>>
>> Any changes that break the above conditions will turn off the partition
>> flag forcefully. The only exception is cpu offlining where cpus_allowed
>>> effective_cpus + reserved_cpus can happen.
>> One reason for doing so is because reserved_cpus is hidden. So the main
>> way to infer that is to do cpus_allowed - effective_cpus.
>>
>> It is probably doable to make cpus_allowed >= effective_cpus +
>> reserved_cpus in general, but we may need to expose reserved_cpus as a
>> read-only file, for instance. There may also be other complications that
>> we will need to take care of if this is supported. My current preference
>> is to not doing that unless there is compelling reason to do so.
> So, if we're gonna make this hierarchical, I think it probably would
> be better to go in all the way.  It's kinda weird to mix the two
> approaches - the normal cpuset operation following the usual
> convention (it'd be really great to fix the removal part too) and
> parition code doing something else.
>
> I think adding another interface file should be fine here.
>
> Thanks.
>
OK, I will revise the patch to make it work without the removal part.

Thanks,
Longman