linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] why can't dynamic isolation just like the static way

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:   Tue, 11 Feb 2020 08:54:43 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "open list:SCHEDULER" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] why can't dynamic isolation just like the static way


You forgot to include the cgroup maintainers.

-- Steve


On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:17:34 +0800
王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:

> Hi, folks
> 
> We are dealing with isolcpus these days and try to do the isolation
> dynamically.
> 
> The kernel doc lead us into the cpuset.sched_load_balance, it's fine
> to achieve the dynamic isolation with it, however we got problem with
> the systemd stuff.
> 
> It's keeping create cgroup with sched_load_balance enabled on default,
> while the cpus are overlapped with the isolated ones, which lead into
> sched domain rebuild and these cpus become non-isolated.
> 
> We're just looking forward an easy way to dynamic isolate some cpus,
> just like the isolation parameter, but sched_load_balance forcing us
> to dealing with the management of cgroups, we really don't get the
> point in here...
> 
> Why do we have to mix the isolation with cgroups? Why not just provide
> a proc entry to read cpumask and rebuild the domains?
> 
> Please let us know if there is any good reason to make the dynamic
> isolation in that way, appreciated in advance :-)
> 
> Regards,
> Michael Wang