linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] zone_reclaim

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: <4A0C7DB6.6010601@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 May 2009 16:23:18 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] zone_reclaim_mode is always 0 by default

Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Not having zone reclaim on a NUMA system often means that per node
> allocations will fall back. Optimized node local allocations become very
> difficult for the page allocator. If the latency penalties are not
> significant then this may not matter. The larger the system, the larger
> the NUMA latencies become.
> 
> One possibility would be to disable zone reclaim for low node numbers.
> Eanble it only if more than 4 nodes exist?

I suspect that patches 1/4 through 3/4 will cause the
system to behave better already, by only reclaiming
the easiest to reclaim pages from zone reclaim and
falling back after that - or am overlooking something?
--
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/