Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:21:21 -0300 | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/4] add basic task isolation prctl interface |
| |
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 11:00:01AM -0400, Nitesh Lal wrote: > > > A latency sensitive > > > application might be OK with the former but not with the latter. > > > > Two alternatives: > > > > 1) The pattern above, where particular subsystems that might interrupt > > the kernel are enabled automatically if the kernel supports it. > > > > Pros: > > Applications which implement this only need to be changed once, > > and can benefit from new kernel features. > > > > Applications can disable particular features if they turn > > out to be problematic. > > > > Cons: > > New features might break applications. > > > > 2) Force applications to enable each new feature individually. > > > > Pros: Won't cause regressions, kernel behaviour is explicitly > > controlled by userspace. > > > > Cons: Apps won't benefit from new features automatically. > > > > --- > > > > It seems to me 1) is preferred. Can also add a sysfs control to > > have a "default_isolation_feature" flag, which can be changed > > by a sysadmin in case a new feature is undesired. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > The first option may work specifically with the sysfs interface that you > mentioned, however, IMHO (2) is safer than regressing the workloads. Also, > if the previously implemented controls are good enough for the workload > then there should not be a need to enable the new ones.
OK, can set default_isolation_feature as 0 then, which admin can configure to a non-default value. This would enable the new features only if the admin enables them.
Thanks.
| |