linux-kernel - Re: [rfc 08/45] cpu alloc: x86 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: <200711201437.38045.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:37:37 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, 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 Tuesday 20 November 2007 13:02, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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.

Not the way things are going with multicore and multithread, though
(that is, the hardware can be one socket and still have many cpus).

The chip might have several memory controllers on it, but they could
well be connected to the caches with a crossbar, so it needn't be
NUMA at all. Future scalability work shouldn't rely on many cores
~= many nodes, IMO.
-
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/