linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/8] sched: Favour moving tasks towards the preferred node

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:	Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:10:48 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] sched: Favour moving tasks towards the preferred node

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:45:35PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:

> > Also, until I just actually _read_ that function; I assumed it would
> > compare p->numa_faults[src_nid] and p->numa_faults[dst_nid]. Because
> > even when the dst_nid isn't the preferred nid; it might still have more
> > pages than where we currently are.
> > 
> 
> I tested something like this and also tested it when only taking shared
> accesses into account but it performed badly in some cases.  I've included
> the last patch I tested below for reference but dropped it until I figured
> out why it performed badly. I guessed it was due to increased bouncing
> due to shared faults but didn't prove it.

Oh, interesting. Yeah it would be good to figure out why that gave
funnies.
--
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/