netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/8] netback: don't bind kthread to cpu

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: <1362490210.4748.23.camel@zion.uk.xensource.com>
Date:	Tue, 5 Mar 2013 13:30:10 +0000
From:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
To:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC:	<wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	"annie.li@...cle.com" <annie.li@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] netback: don't bind kthread to cpu

On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 20:51 +0000, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 04:00:02PM +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> > The initialization process makes an assumption that the online cpus are
> > numbered from 0 to xen_netbk_group_nr-1,  which is not always true.
> 
> And xen_netbk_group_nr is num_online_cpus()?
> 

Yes.

> So under what conditions does this change? Is this when the CPU hotplug
> is involved and the CPUs go offline? In which case should there be a

Yes, the hotplug path.

> CPU hotplug notifier to re-bind the workers are appropiate?
> 
> > 
> > As we only need a pool of worker threads, simply don't bind them to specific
> > cpus.
> 
> OK. Is there another method of doing this? Are there patches to make the thread
> try to be vCPU->guest affinite?
> 

No, not at the moment.


Wei.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html