linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated

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:	Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:26:54 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	apw@...dowen.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that
 may be migrated

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 08:05:16 -0800 (PST)
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Mel Gorman wrote:
> 
> > That is one possibility. There are people working on fake nodes for containers
> > at the moment. If that pans out, the infrastructure would be available to
> > create one node per DIMM.
> 
> Right that is a hack in use for one project.

Other projects can use it too.  It has the distinct advantage that it works
with today's VM.

> We would be adding huge 
> amounts of VM overhead if we do a node per DIMM.

No we wouldn't.

> So a desktop system with two dimms is to be treated like a NUMA 
> system?

Could do that.  Or make them separate zones.

> Or how else do we deal with the multitude of load balancing 
> situations that the additional nodes will generate?

No such problems are known.
-
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/