linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] Add movablecore

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:34:56 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>, jiang.liu@...wei.com,
	wujianguo@...wei.com, wency@...fujitsu.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	linfeng@...fujitsu.com, yinghai@...nel.org,
	isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, rob@...dley.net,
	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, minchan.kim@...il.com,
	mgorman@...e.de, rientjes@...gle.com, guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, lliubbo@...il.com, jaegeuk.hanse@...il.com,
	tony.luck@...el.com, glommer@...allels.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] Add movablecore_map boot option

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:31:33 -0800
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:

> On 01/14/2013 01:15 AM, Tang Chen wrote:
> >
> > For now, users can disable this functionality by not specifying the boot option.
> > Later, we will post SRAT support, and add another option value "movablecore_map=acpi"
> > to using SRAT.
> >
> 
> I still think the option "movablecore_map" is uglier than hell.  "core" 
> could just as easily refer to CPU cores there, but it is a memory mem. 
> "movablemem" seems more appropriate.
> 
> Again, without SRAT I consider this patchset to be largely useless for 
> anything other than prototyping work.
> 

hm, why.  Obviously SRAT support will improve things, but is it
actually unusable/unuseful with the command line configuration?

Also, "But even if we can use SRAT, users still need an interface to
enable/disable this functionality if they don't want to loose their
NUMA performance.  So I think, an user interface is always needed."


There's also the matter of other architectures.  Has any thought been
given to how (eg) powerpc would hook into here?

And what about VMs (xen, KVM)?  I wonder if there is a case for those
to implement memory hotplug.  
--
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/