linux-kernel - Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related patches

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:	Thu, 1 Mar 2007 20:29:17 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@...r.sgi.com>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
	mingo@...e.hu, jschopp@...tin.ibm.com, arjan@...radead.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mbligh@...igh.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related
 patches

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 20:06:25 -0800 (PST) Christoph Lameter <clameter@...r.sgi.com> wrote:

> No merge them to one thing and handle them as one. No difference between 
> zones and nodes anymore.

Sorry, but this is crap.  zones and nodes are distinct, physical concepts
and you're kidding yourself if you think you can somehow fudge things to make
one of them just go away.

Think: ZONE_DMA32 on an Opteron machine.  I don't think there is a sane way
in which we can fudge away the distinction between
bus-addresses-which-have-the-32-upper-bits-zero and
memory-which-is-local-to-each-socket.

No matter how hard those hands are waving.
-
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/