| 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: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 18:34:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org> Subject: Re: [rfc] balance-on-fork NUMA placement On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > Yeah it only gets set if the parent is initially using a default policy > at this stage (and then is restored afterwards of course). Uggh. Looks like more hackery ahead. I think this cannot be done in the desired clean way until we have some revving of the memory policy subsystem that makes policies task context independent so that you can do alloc_pages(...., memory_policy) The cleanest solution that I can think of at this point is certainly to switch to another processor and do the allocation and copying actions from there. We have the migration process context right? Can that be used to start the new thread and can the original processor wait on some flag until that is complete? Forking off from there not only places the data correctly but it also warms up the caches for the new process and avoids evicting cacheline on the original processor. - 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