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: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:53:50 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86,mm,64bit: Round up memory boundary for init_memory_mapping_high() * Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote: > > will have problem with cross node conf. like 0-4g, 8-12g on node0, 4g-8g, > > 12g-16g on node1. > > And how common are they? This whole cruft is basically meaningless if 1GiB > mapping is supported, IOW, basically on all AMD 64s and all post-nehalem intels. > Why not just cite the limitation in the comment and stick to something simple? Such complexity should be justified via very careful "perf stat --repeat" measurements. I.e. showing 'before patch' and 'after patch' instruction, TLB miss and cycle counts, showing that a positive effect that goes beyond the noise of the measurement exists. 1GB mappings should be assumed as the common case - anything else probably does not matter from a future performance/scalability POV. For vmalloc() it might make sense - but even for those precise measurements should be done about the positive effect. Thanks, Ingo -- 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