| 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: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 19:19:58 +0100 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, tglx@...utronix.de, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH x86/mm UPDATED] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling Hello, On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:02:41AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > No, NUMA implementation can skip numa_set_distance() entirely if the > > distance is LOCAL_DISTANCE if nids are equal, REMOTE_DISTANCE > > otherwise. In fact, any amdtopology configuraiton would behave this > > way, so it's incorrect to fill the table with LOCAL_DISTANCE. You > > have to check the physnid mapping and build new table whether physical > > table exists or not. Lack of physical distance table doesn't mean all > > nodes are LOCAL_DISTANCE. > > too bad. We should call numa_alloc_distance in amdtopology to set > default value in that array. I'm not following. If there's no distance table, the distance is assumed to be LOCAL between the same node and REMOTE if the nodes are different, which is exactly the way it should be for those machines. Why is this bad and why would you allocate distance table for such configurations? -- tejun -- 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