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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:03:45 +0200 From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> To: Magnus Damm <magnus@...inux.co.jp> Cc: Christoph@...-sf-spam2.sourceforge.net, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Linux@...-sf-spam2.sourceforge.net, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>, List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>, Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org, rohitseth@...gle.com, hugh@...itas.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org> Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/7] UBC: syscalls (user interface) On Monday 21 August 2006 10:42, Magnus Damm wrote: > No problem. The second URL pointed to a x86_64 version where I tried to > break out code to make some kind of generic NUMA emulation layer. At > that time no one seemed interested in that strategy as a simple resource > control solution so I gave that up. > > For x86_64 I think it's only worth mucking around with the code if > people believe that it is the right way to go for in-kernel resource > control. Does it by chance fix the existing code? Andrew has been complaining (and I could reproduce) that numa=fake=16 makes it triple fault at boot. The theory was that it didn't like empty nodes which can happen this way. I unfortunately didn't have time to look into it closely so far. > The x86_64 patches above include code to divide each real NUMA node into > several smaller emulated nodes, but that is kind of pointless if people > only use it for non-resource control purposes, ie just to play with > CPUSETS and NUMA on non-NUMA hardware. For simple purposes like that I > think the existing NUMA emulation code for x86_64 works perfectly well. > > I still think that i386 users would benefit from NUMA emulation though. > If you want me to up-port the i386-specific code just let me know. I personally have my doubts about 32bit NUMA -- it will always have ZONE_NORMAL only on a single node, which limits it very much. But ok I guess it might be useful to somebody. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists