linux-kernel - Re: [patch v2]numa: add a sysctl to control interleave allocation granularity from each node

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1323234205.22361.365.camel@sli10-conroe>
Date:	Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:03:25 +0800
From:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	"lee.schermerhorn@...com" <lee.schermerhorn@...com>
Subject: Re: [patch v2]numa: add a sysctl to control interleave allocation
 granularity from each node

On Wed, 2011-12-07 at 09:42 +0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Shaohua Li wrote:
> 
> > based on the allocation size, right? I did consider it. It would be easy to
> > implement this. Note even without my patch we have the issue if allocation
> > from one node is big order and small order from other node. And nobody
> > complains the imbalance. This makes me think maybe people didn't care
> > about the imbalance too much.
> > 
> 
> Right, I certainly see what you're trying to do and I support it, however, 
> if we're going to add a userspace tunable then I think it would be better 
> implemented as a size.  You can still get the functionality that you have 
> with your patch (just with a size of 0, the default, making every 
> allocation on the next node) but can also interleave on PAGE_SIZE, 
> HPAGE_SIZE, etc, increments.  I think it would help for users who are 
> concerned about node symmetry for contention on the memory bus and it 
> would be a shame if someone needed to add a second tunable for that affect 
> if your tunable already has applications using it.
sure, I can do this in next post.

--
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/