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]

Date:   Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:16:49 -0400
From:   Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To:     "Jan H." Schönherr <jschoenh@...zon.de>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/60] Coscheduling for Linux

On Fri, 2018-10-19 at 13:40 +0200, Jan H. Schönherr wrote:
> 
> Now, it would be possible to "invent" relocatable cpusets to address
> that
> issue ("I want affinity restricted to a core, I don't care which"),
> but
> then, the current way how cpuset affinity is enforced doesn't scale
> for
> making use of it from within the balancer. (The upcoming load
> balancing
> portion of the coscheduler currently uses a file similar to
> cpu.scheduled
> to restrict affinity to a load-balancer-controlled subset of the
> system.)

Oh boy, so the coscheduler is going to get its
own load balancer?

At that point, why bother integrating the
coscheduler into CFS, instead of making it its
own scheduling class?

CFS is already complicated enough that it borders
on unmaintainable. I would really prefer to have
the coscheduler code separate from CFS, unless
there is a really compelling reason to do otherwise.

-- 
All Rights Reversed.

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