linux-kernel - Re: [rfc] balance-on-fork NUMA placement

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, 2 Aug 2007 12:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] balance-on-fork NUMA placement

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > It does in the sense that slabs are allocated following policies. If you 
> > want to place individual objects then you need to use kmalloc_node().
> 
> Is there no way to place objects via policy? At least kernel stack and page
> tables on x86-64 should be covered by page allocator policy, so the patch
> will still be useful.

Implementing policies on an object level introduces significant allocator 
overhead. Tried to do it in SLAB which created a mess.

Add a (slow) kmalloc_policy? Strict Object round robin for interleave 
right? It probably needs its own RR counter otherwise it disturbs the per 
task page RR.

For interleave kmalloc() does allocate the slabs round robin not the 
objects.
-
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/