linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] cgroup/cpuset: Add new cpus.partition type with no load balancing

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: <YMJhObisfWJ1PzgR@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:00:09 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] cgroup/cpuset: Add new cpus.partition type with no
 load balancing

On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 05:24:13PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Cpuset v1 uses the sched_load_balance control file to determine if load
> balancing should be enabled.  Cpuset v2 gets rid of sched_load_balance
> as its use may require disabling load balancing at cgroup root.
> 
> For workloads that require very low latency like DPDK, the latency
> jitters caused by periodic load balancing may exceed the desired
> latency limit.
> 
> When cpuset v2 is in use, the only way to avoid this latency cost is to
> use the "isolcpus=" kernel boot option to isolate a set of CPUs. After
> the kernel boot, however, there is no way to add or remove CPUs from
> this isolated set. For workloads that are more dynamic in nature, that
> means users have to provision enough CPUs for the worst case situation
> resulting in excess idle CPUs.

Also, can we change isolcpus to create a default cgroup hierarchy
instead of being the fugly hack that it is? I really hate isolcpus with
a passion, it needs to die.