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 19:22:31 +0200
From:	Stefan Lankes <lankes@...s.rwth-aachen.de>
To:	'Andi Kleen' <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andi Kleen [mailto:andi@...stfloor.org]
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 6:37 PM
> To: Stefan Lankes
> Cc: 'Andi Kleen'; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> Lee.Schermerhorn@...com; linux-numa@...r.kernel.org;
> brice.goglin@...ia.fr; 'Terboven, Christian'; anmey@...rwth-aachen.de;
> 'Boris Bierbaum'
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4]: affinity-on-next-touch
> 
> > 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.
> 

I know this possibility. I thought that "affinity-on-next-touch" fit better
to madvise. Brice told already the technical reasons for preferring of
madvise.

> > 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.
> 

I will do it.

Stefan

--
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/