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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20071030172923.d5d8dac3.pj@sgi.com> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:29:23 -0700 From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com> To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> Cc: clameter@....com, Lee.Schermerhorn@...com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ak@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option David wrote: > Of course they have specific affinity needs, that's why they used > mempolicies. No. Good grief. If they are just looking for some set of memory banks, not to other node-specific hardware, then they might not need a specific node. Consider for example a multi-threaded, compute bound, long running scientific computation that has a substantial and fussy memory layout. Remapping it from one cpuset to another having the same NUMA topology may well work fine, once its memory caches recover. Reverting it to the lowest common denominator MPOL_DEFAULT policy because (Choice C) it no longer has access to its initial nodes might devastate its performance. pj wrote: > I sure wish I knew what real world, actual, not hypothetical, situations > were motivating this. I'm still wishing ... -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.925.600.0401 - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists