linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] x86: Reduce memory and intra-node effects with large count NR

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: <200801141104.18789.ak@suse.de>
Date:	Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:04:18 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	travis@....com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] x86: Reduce memory and intra-node effects with large count NR_CPUs


> i.e. we've got ~22K bloat per CPU - which is not bad, but because it's a 
> static component, it hurts smaller boxes. For distributors to enable 
> CONFIG_NR_CPU=1024 by default i guess that bloat has to drop below 1-2K 
> per CPU :-/ [that would still mean 1-2MB total bloat but that's much 
> more acceptable than 23MB]

Even 1-2MB overhead would be too much for distributors I think. Ideally
there must be near zero overhead for possible CPUs (and I see no principle
reason why this is not possible) Worst case a low few hundred KBs, but even
that would be much.

There are the cpusets which get passed around, but these are only one bit per 
possible CPU.

-Andi
--
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/