| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <8343168C-D5F7-43E4-B614-45FBAF5B29A7@mit.edu> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:11:07 -0500 From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU> To: NamJae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com> Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Amit Sahrawat <amit.sahrawat83@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: slab caches set to SLAB_MEM_SPREAD flags. On Nov 17, 2011, at 12:35 AM, NamJae Jeon wrote: > We prevent one node being concentrating workload from redundant > alloc/free by balancing workload to other nodes in performance side. > and we can avoid reclaim probability a little by allocation from only > local node also. Can you say more about this? I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to do here. What I'm worried about is systems where the memory latency time for local versus remote nodes might be 2-3 to 1. That is, it takes 2-3 times as much time to access memory on a remote node. (On older machines, the memory access time ratio's could have been as bad as 12:1 or 15:1.) So accessing non-local memory can be a really, really big deal. And this isn't just theoretical, but have you considered what might happen on a 8 core AMD machine? Regards, -- Ted -- 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