linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/7] UBC: syscalls (user interface)

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1156127920.21411.32.camel@localhost>
Date:	Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:38:40 +0900
From:	Magnus Damm <magnus@...inux.co.jp>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Christoph@...-sf-spam2.sourceforge.net,
	List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>,
	Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linux@...-sf-spam2.sourceforge.net, rohitseth@...gle.com,
	hugh@...itas.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>, devel@...nvz.org,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/7] UBC: syscalls (user interface)

On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 09:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:45:48 -0700
> Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 12:08 +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> > > 
> > > A) Have separate memory management for each container,
> > >    with separate buddy allocator, lru lists, page replacement mechanism.
> > >    That implies a considerable overhead, and the main challenge there
> > >    is sharing of pages between these separate memory managers.
> > 
> > Hold on here for just a sec...
> > 
> > It is quite possible to do memory management aimed at one container
> > while that container's memory still participates in the main VM.  
> > 
> > There is overhead here, as the LRU scanning mechanisms get less
> > efficient, but I'd rather pay a penalty at LRU scanning time than divide
> > up the VM, or coarsely start failing allocations.
> > 
> 
> I have this mad idea that you can divide a 128GB machine up into 256 fake
> NUMA nodes, then you use each "node" as a 512MB unit of memory allocation. 
> So that 4.5GB job would be placed within an exclusive cpuset which has nine
> "mems" (what are these called?) and voila: the job has a hard 4.5GB limit,
> no kernel changes needed.
> 
> Unfortunately this is not testable because numa=fake=256 doesn't come even
> vaguely close to working.  Am trying to get that fixed.

You may be looking for the NUMA emulation patches posted here:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-mm&m=112806587501884&w=2

There is a slightly updated x86_64 version here too:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-mm&m=113161386520342&w=2

/ magnus

-
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/