linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: fix node_possible

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 12 May 2009 09:15:31 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: fix node_possible_map logic -v2

> Should it?  It seems to me that CPUs 0-1 should be antipreferentially 
> scheduled, 

You could do that, but the question is if it matters. It would
only make a difference on systems which are not fully loaded, 
and it's unclear how much.

And at some point you need to use these cores anyways; usually it's much
worse to not use a CPU and overload others than to use it with slower memory.

Is it worth adding a lot of fixes all over hte kernel? Not clear
to me.

Also it's a obscure situation and it affects a lot of code, so you
would likely have to continuously fight with regressions as Jack
has discovered.

-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/