linux-kernel - Re: Off topic: Numactl "distance" wrong

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]

Date:	Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc:	Chris Worley <worleys@...il.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Off topic: Numactl "distance" wrong

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Andi Kleen wrote:

> > Who would be the right person (or list) to talk about this?
> 
> Your BIOS vendor whose code reported the wrong values. Not that it matters
> really on small systems.
> 

The numactl --hardware values are coming directly from the sysfs per-node 
distance interface, so this may not be a result of erroneous BIOS data but 
rather the lack of a SLIT to describe the physical topology better.  When 
we lack a SLIT, nodes are simply given these remote distances of 20 
because their ids differ.

Yinghai, can you elaborate on exactly what type of interface you can 
imagine for modifying the distance for nodes through sysfs?  It seems like 
you'd have to report the entire physical topology in one write, for which 
we currently don't have an interface for beyond pxms, instead of per-node 
distances to remote nodes.
--
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/