linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Preventing job distribution to isolated CPUs

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: <20200624100806.GE4800@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:08:06 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        frederic@...nel.org, mtosatti@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        abelits@...vell.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, davem@...emloft.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        sfr@...b.auug.org.au, stephen@...workplumber.org,
        rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Preventing job distribution to isolated CPUs

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 03:23:28PM -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> This patch-set is originated from one of the patches that have been
> posted earlier as a part of "Task_isolation" mode [1] patch series
> by Alex Belits <abelits@...vell.com>. There are only a couple of
> changes that I am proposing in this patch-set compared to what Alex
> has posted earlier.

> 
> Alex Belits (3):
>   lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping CPUs
>   PCI: Restrict probe functions to housekeeping CPUs
>   net: Restrict receive packets queuing to housekeeping CPUs
> 
>  drivers/pci/pci-driver.c |  5 ++++-
>  lib/cpumask.c            | 16 +++++++++++-----
>  net/core/net-sysfs.c     | 10 +++++++++-
>  3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

This looks reasonable to me; who is expected to merge this? Should I
take it through the scheduler tree like most of the nohz_full, or what
do we do?