| 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: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:56:11 -0400 From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> CC: mingo@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, pjt@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, Lee.Schermerhorn@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/19] sched, numa: Per task memory placement for big processes On 07/31/2012 03:12 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Probability says that the task faulting on a page after we protect it, > is most likely to be the task that uses that page most. > > To decrease the likelyhood of acting on a false relation, we only > migrate a page when two consecutive samples are from the same task. > > I'm still not entirely convinced this scheme is sound, esp. for things > like virtualization and n:m threading solutions in general the > compute<->task relation is fundamentally untrue. Again, we may need some additional code on top in the future, eg. something like Andrea's policy that tries grouping related tasks/threads together, but this looks like a very good way to start. We can introduce complexity if it is needed. Simplicity is good. Acked-by: Rik van Riel -- All rights reversed -- 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