linux-kernel - Re: [patch] x86: reduce srat verbosity in the kernel log

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:	Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:34:02 -0700
From:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] x86: reduce srat verbosity in the kernel log



David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Mike Travis wrote:
> 
>>> I'm not saying it would be illegal, merely that it would be harm
>>> readability.  Based on how apic id's are formed from processor ids, though,
>>> I think we're really talking about an upper limit (128) that will never be
>>> reached.
>> We actually have many, many more than that by adding on some extra bits
>> to the CPU's apicid.  These select which blade in the system to target.
>>
> 
> Maybe I've been vague in my rationale for why this limit will probably 
> never be reached.  The way apic ids are constructed, with physical and 
> logical processor ids, it tends to lend itself to ranges where 
> bitmap_scnlistprintf() can specify a large number of apic ids with 
> relatively few ASCII characters because logical processors typically do 
> not have differing pxms.  For us to reach the 128 character upper bound, 
> scnlistprintf() would need to have many, many distinct ranges; your 
> example showed two ranges per pxm (many more machines would have only a 
> single range).  In other words, we're not predicting to have 
> "1-2,4-6,8-9,11-13,15-17," etc, that we often have with nodemasks.

Yes, you are correct.  (I was confused... ;-)

I believe the disjointed ranges came from the hyperthread cpus..?  Which if
true means there'll probably be as many distinct ranges as there are threads
per core?
--
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/