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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:22:23 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] cgroup/cpuset: A new "isolcpus" paritition

Hello, Waiman.

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 03:52:36PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> There is still a distribution hierarchy as the list of isolation CPUs have
> to be distributed down to the target cgroup through the hierarchy. For
> example,
> 
> cgroup root
>   +- isolcpus  (cpus 8,9; isolcpus)
>   +- user.slice (cpus 1-9; ecpus 1-7; member)
>      +- user-x.slice (cpus 8,9; ecpus 8,9; isolated)
>      +- user-y.slice (cpus 1,2; ecpus 1,2; member)
> 
> OTOH, I do agree that this can be somewhat hacky. That is why I post it as a
> RFC to solicit feedback.

Wouldn't it be possible to make it hierarchical by adding another cpumask to
cpuset which lists the cpus which are allowed in the hierarchy but not used
unless claimed by an isolated domain?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ