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  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:   Thu, 7 Jan 2021 15:18:47 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc:     paulmck@...nel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team@...com, Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC cpumask 4/5] cpumask: Add "last" alias for cpu list
 specifications

On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 01:16:50PM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 1:50 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> > Aside from the comments Yury made, on how all this is better in
> > bitmap_parselist(), how about doing s/last/N/ here? For me something
> > like: "4-N" reads much saner than "4-last".
> >
> > Also, it might make sense to teach all this about core/node topology,
> > but that's going to be messy. Imagine something like "Core1-CoreN" or
> > "Nore1-NodeN" to mean the mask all/{Core,Node}0.
> 
> If you just want to teach bitmap_parselist() to "s/Core0/0-4",  I think
> it's doable if we add a hook to a proper subsystem in bitmap_parselist().
> 
> > And that is another feature that seems to be missing from parselist,
> > all/except.
> 
> We already support groups in a range. I think it partially covers the
> proposed all/except.
> 
> Can you share examples on what you miss?

The obvious one is the "all/Core0" example above, which would be
equivalent to "Core1-CoreN".

Another case that I don't think we can do today is something like, give
me SMT0 of each core.

I don't really see the use of the ranges thing, CPU enumeration just
isn't sane like that. Also, I should really add that randomization pass
to the CPU enumeration :-)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists