linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] slob: poor man's NUMA support.

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: <467F5E14.5030401@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:17:56 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slob: poor man's NUMA support.

Paul Mundt wrote:
> This adds preliminary NUMA support to SLOB, primarily aimed at systems
> with small nodes (tested all the way down to a 128kB SRAM block), whether
> asymmetric or otherwise.

Fine by me as well, FWIW. My points about per-cpu/node queues were not
to say that I'm really opposed to getting this in first. In a way, you
sell yourself short with the patch name: the implementation may be just
a basic one, but simplicity is a key point of SLOB... Adding numa
awareness to the slob APIs is obviously a key step and makes it much
easier to experiment with enhancements to the implementation.

Unless it has been picked up already, I'd call it "initial NUMA support"
;) Thanks! Would be great to hear about your experiences using SLOB as
well -- how much memory you're saving, how it performs, etc.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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/