linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] cgroup/cpuset: A new "isolcpus" paritition

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: <ZDdNy2NAfj2_1CbW@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2023 14:33:15 -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,

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 08:26:03PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>   If the "cpuset.cpus.isolated" isn't set, the existing rules applies. If it
> is set, the new rule will be used.
> 
> Does that look reasonable to you?

Sounds a bit contrived. Does it need to be something defined in the root
cgroup? The only thing that's needed is that a cgroup needs to claim CPUs
exclusively without using them, right? Let's say we add a new interface
file, say, cpuset.cpus.reserve which is always exclusive and can be consumed
by children whichever way they want, wouldn't that be sufficient? Then,
there would be nothing to describe in the root cgroup.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun