linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] cpuset: Support RCU-NOCB toggle on v2 root partitions

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: <20220530213556.GD1257179@lothringen>
Date:   Mon, 30 May 2022 23:35:56 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@...nel.org>,
        rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] cpuset: Support RCU-NOCB toggle on v2 root
 partitions

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 03:16:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 12:56:50PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> > > This is ABI, you can't walk back on it. I would suggest starting with an
> > > 'all feature' isolation. Only if there's real demand for something more
> > > fine-grained add that on top. Simple first etc.
> > 
> > That's actually my worry. If we start with an all in one ABI, how do we later
> > mix that up with more finegrained features? Like what will be the behaviour of:
> > 
> > cpuset.isolation.rcu_nocb = 0
> > cpuset.isolation.all = 1
> 
> Well clearly that doesn't make sense. I was more thinking along the
> lines of cgroup.subtree_control, where instead all features are enabled
> by default.
> 
> But only if there's a real usecase, otherwise there's no point in
> providing such knobs.

That makes sense. So there would be a simple cpuset.isolation that can
be either 1 or 0 where 1 has all possible isolation stuff on. Then
if the need arises we can provide more tuning through a new specific
cgroup controller, right?

If so that sounds good to me.