linux-kernel - Re: [tip:sched/numa] sched/numa: Introduce sys_numa

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 21 May 2012 10:40:46 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	pjt@...gle.com, cl@...ux.com, riel@...hat.com,
	bharata.rao@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Lee.Schermerhorn@...com, aarcange@...hat.com, danms@...ibm.com,
	suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/numa] sched/numa: Introduce sys_numa_{t,m}bind()


* David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 May 2012, tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > Commit-ID:  3a0fea961b98d1838f35dba51a639d40f4a5589f
> > Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/3a0fea961b98d1838f35dba51a639d40f4a5589f
> > Author:     Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> > AuthorDate: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 17:56:08 +0100
> > Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> > CommitDate: Fri, 18 May 2012 08:16:27 +0200
> > 
> > sched/numa: Introduce sys_numa_{t,m}bind()
> > 
> 
> This depends on 931ea9d1a6e0 ("rcu: Implement per-domain 
> single-threaded call_srcu() state machine") from core/rcu.

Indeed ...

I'll rebase it to a (by that time probably upstream) srcu commit 
after the merge window, once we have more fixes, have 
incorporated suggestions, etc. - but it's still essentially an 
RFC topic: [*]

Fundamentally, do people agree with the 'single home node' 
approach to begin with? We could turn it into a node mask,
but that complicates things.

For example if there's a hierarchy of nodes, low latency and 
high latency ones, then it might be valid to limit to a high 
level (high latency) node and not specify the lower level node - 
while the kernel would still know about the lower level nodes as 
well.

Managing locality in a non-trivial cache hierarchy is hard :-/

Thanks,

	Ingo

[*] I should probably move this to the tip:RFC/sched/numa 
    branch, to make it clear what the status of the branch is,
    from the commit notification emails.
--
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/