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

Message-Id: <200608211103.45175.ak@suse.de>
Date:	Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:03:45 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	Magnus Damm <magnus@...inux.co.jp>
Cc:	Christoph@...-sf-spam2.sourceforge.net,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Linux@...-sf-spam2.sourceforge.net,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>,
	List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>,
	Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>,
	devel@...nvz.org, rohitseth@...gle.com, hugh@...itas.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/7] UBC: syscalls (user interface)

On Monday 21 August 2006 10:42, Magnus Damm wrote:

> No problem. The second URL pointed to a x86_64 version where I tried to
> break out code to make some kind of generic NUMA emulation layer. At
> that time no one seemed interested in that strategy as a simple resource
> control solution so I gave that up.
> 
> For x86_64 I think it's only worth mucking around with the code if
> people believe that it is the right way to go for in-kernel resource
> control.

Does it by chance fix the existing code? Andrew has been complaining
(and I could reproduce) that numa=fake=16 makes it triple fault at boot.
The theory was that it didn't like empty nodes which can happen this way.
I unfortunately didn't have time to look into it closely so far.

> The x86_64 patches above include code to divide each real NUMA node into
> several smaller emulated nodes, but that is kind of pointless if people
> only use it for non-resource control purposes, ie just to play with
> CPUSETS and NUMA on non-NUMA hardware. For simple purposes like that I
> think the existing NUMA emulation code for x86_64 works perfectly well.
> 
> I still think that i386 users would benefit from NUMA emulation though.
> If you want me to up-port the i386-specific code just let me know.

I personally have my doubts about 32bit NUMA -- it will always have
ZONE_NORMAL only on a single node, which limits it very much. 
But ok I guess it might be useful to somebody.

-Andi
 
-
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/