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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:56:03 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> To: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Rob Mueller <robm@...tmail.fm>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bron Gondwana <brong@...tmail.fm>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [resend][PATCH] mm: increase RECLAIM_DISTANCE to 30 On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, Balbir Singh wrote: > * Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> [2010-10-08 10:45:16]: > > > On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, Balbir Singh wrote: > > > > > I am not sure if this makes sense, since RECLAIM_DISTANCE is supposed > > > to be a hardware parameter. Could you please help clarify what the > > > access latency of a node with RECLAIM_DISTANCE 20 to that of a node > > > with RECLAIM_DISTANCE 30 is? Has the hardware definition of reclaim > > > distance changed? > > > > 10 is the local distance. So 30 should be 3x the latency that a local > > access takes. > > > > Does this patch then imply that we should do zone_reclaim only for 3x > nodes and not 2x nodes as we did earlier. It implies that zone reclaim is going to be automatically enabled if the maximum latency to the memory farthest away is 3 times or more that of a local memory access. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists