linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Relax restrictions on setting CONFIG

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: <200801231448.09514.andi@firstfloor.org>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:48:09 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	apw@...dowen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Relax restrictions on setting CONFIG_NUMA on x86 II

On Wednesday 23 January 2008 12:24:36 Mel Gorman wrote:
> On (23/01/08 12:15), Andi Kleen didst pronounce:
> > Anyways from your earlier comments it sounds like you're trying to add
> > SRAT parsing to CONFIG_NUMAQ. Since that's redundant with the old
> > implementation it doesn't sound like a very useful thing to do.
>
> No, that would not be useful at all as it's redundant as you point out. The
> only reason to add it is if the Opteron box can figure out the CPU-to-node
> affinity. 

Assuming srat_32.c was fixed to not crash on Opteron it would likely
do that already without further changes.

> :| The patches applied so far are about increasing test coverage, not SRAT
> messing. 

Test coverage of the NUMAQ kernel?

If you wanted to increase test coverage of 32bit NUMA kernels the right
strategy would be to fix srat_32.

-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/