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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:29:56 -0800 From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com, Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, kerrnel@...gle.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/16] sched: Core scheduling On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 12:40 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote: > > If there were close to no VMEXITs, it beat smt=off, if there were lots > of VMEXITs it was far far worse. Supposedly hosting people try their > very bestest to have no VMEXITs so it mostly works for them (with the > obvious exception of single VCPU guests). > > It's just that people have been bugging me for this crap; and I figure > I'd post it now that it's not exploding anymore and let others have at. The patches didn't look disgusting to me, but I admittedly just scanned through them quickly. Are there downsides (maintenance and/or performance) when core scheduling _isn't_ enabled? I guess if it's not a maintenance or performance nightmare when off, it's ok to just give people the option. That all assumes that it works at all for the people who are clamoring for this feature, but I guess they can run some loads on it eventually. It's a holiday in the US right now ("Presidents' Day"), but maybe we can get some numebrs this week? Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists