linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4]: affinity-on-next-touch

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]

Date:	Mon, 11 May 2009 18:37:19 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Stefan Lankes <lankes@...s.rwth-aachen.de>
Cc:	'Andi Kleen' <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Lee.Schermerhorn@...com, linux-numa@...r.kernel.org,
	brice.goglin@...ia.fr,
	"'Terboven, Christian'" <terboven@...rwth-aachen.de>,
	anmey@...rwth-aachen.de,
	'Boris Bierbaum' <boris@...s.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4]: affinity-on-next-touch

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 04:54:40PM +0200, Stefan Lankes wrote:
> > From: Andi Kleen [mailto:andi@...stfloor.org]
> > 
> > Stefan Lankes <lankes@...s.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
> > >
> > > [Patch 1/4]: Extend the system call madvise with a new parameter
> > > MADV_ACCESS_LWP (the same as used in Solaris). The specified memory
> > area
> > 
> > Linux does NUMA memory policies in mbind(), not madvise()
> > Also if there's a new NUMA policy it should be in the standard
> > Linux NUMA memory policy frame work, not inventing a new one
> 
> By default, mbind only has an effect on new allocations. I think that this

Nope, it affects existing pages too, it can even move pages
if you ask for it.

> is different from what we need for applications with dynamic memory access
> patterns. The app gives the kernel a hint that the access pattern has been
> changed and the kernel has to redistribute the pages which are already
> allocated.

MF_MOVE


> For instance, Norden's PDE solvers using adaptive mesh refinements (AMR) [1]
> is an application with a dynamic access pattern. We use this example to
> evaluate the performance of our patch. We ran this solver on our
> quad-socket, dual-core Opteron 875 (2.2GHz) system running CentOS 5.2. The
> code was already optimized for NUMA architectures. Before the arrays are
> initialized, the threads are bound to one core. In our test case, the solver
> needs 5318s. If we use our kernel extension, the solver needs 4489s. 

Okay that sounds like good numbers. 

> Currently, we are testing some other apps.

Please keep the list updated.

-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/