linux-kernel - Re: [patch v3]numa: add a sysctl to control interleave allocation granularity from each node to improve I/O performance

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: <1323830027.22361.401.camel@sli10-conroe>
Date:	Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:33:47 +0800
From:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	"lee.schermerhorn@...com" <lee.schermerhorn@...com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v3]numa: add a sysctl to control interleave allocation
 granularity from each node to improve I/O performance

On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 04:38 +0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 02:12:58PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Dec 2011, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 
> > > I would prefer to add a new policy (INTERLEAVE_MULTI or so) for this
> > > instead of a global sysctl, that takes the additional parameter.
> > 
> > That would require a change of all scripts and code that uses
> > MPOL_INTERLEAVE. Lets not do that.
> 
> Yes, but setting a sysctl would need the same right?
> 
> It's not clear that all workloads want this.
> 
> With a global switch only you cannot set it case by case.
That's what I want to avoid letting each apps to explicitly do it, it's
a lot of burden.
That's true only workload with heavy I/O wants this. but I don't expect
it will harm other workloads.

>> Also I don't like having more per task state. Could you compute this
>> from the address instead even for the process policy case?
>
>That sounds good.
the process policy case doesn't give an address for allocation.

Thanks,
Shaohua

--
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/