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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:02:11 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> cc: ak@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, travis@....com, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [rfc 08/45] cpu alloc: x86 support On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > You're making the assumption here that NUMA = large number of CPUs. This > assumption is flat-out wrong. Well maybe. Usually one gets to NUMA because the hardware gets too big to be handleed the UMA way. > On x86-64, most two-socket systems are still NUMA, and I would expect that > most distro kernels probably compile in NUMA. However, > burning megabytes of memory on a two-socket dual-core system when we're > talking about tens of kilobytes used would be more than a wee bit insane. Yeah yea but the latencies are minimal making the NUMA logic too expensive for most loads ... If you put a NUMA kernel onto those then performance drops (I think someone measures 15-30%?) - 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