| 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, 18 Nov 2011 09:56:15 -0600 (CST) From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com> cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, ak@...ux.intel.com, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, lee.schermerhorn@...com Subject: Re: [RFC]numa: improve I/O performance by optimizing numa interleave allocation On Fri, 18 Nov 2011, Shaohua Li wrote: > So can we make both interleave fairness and continuous allocation happy? Maybe. > Simplily we can adjust the round robin algorithm. We switch to another node > after several (N) allocation happens. If N isn't too big, we can still get > fair allocation. And we get N continuous pages. I use N=8 in below patch. > I thought 8 isn't too big for modern NUMA machine. Applications which use > interleave are unlikely run short time, so I thought fairness still works. People are already complaining that the 4k interleaving is too coarse. Bioses can often interleave on a cacheline level. A smaller size balances the load better over multiple nodes. Large sizes can result in imbalances since f.e. a whole array may end up on one node. Maybe make it tunable by expanding the numa_policy structure to include a size parameter? -- 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