linux-kernel - Re: [patch 02/23] SLUB: Rename NUMA defrag_ratio to remote_node_defrag

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: <20071108172548.GW17536@waste.org>
Date:	Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:25:48 -0600
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, akpm@...ux-foundatin.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch 02/23] SLUB: Rename NUMA defrag_ratio to remote_node_defrag_ratio

On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 02:50:44PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > -	if (!s->defrag_ratio || get_cycles() % 1024 > s->defrag_ratio)
> > +	if (!s->remote_node_defrag_ratio ||
> > +			get_cycles() % 1024 > s->remote_node_defrag_ratio)
> 
> I cannot figure out what the number of cycles currently showing on the TSC
> have to do with a ratio :(. I could semi-understand if we were counting up
> how many cycles were being spent trying to pack objects but that does not
> appear to be the case. The comment didn't help a whole lot either. It felt
> like a cost for packing, not a ratio

It's just a random number generator. And a bad one: lots of arches
return 0. And I believe at least one of them has some NUMA support.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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/