linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/31] numa/core patches

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: <509CC42E.1040200@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 09 Nov 2012 03:51:58 -0500
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/31] numa/core patches

On 10/30/2012 08:20 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:16:17PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Here's a re-post of the NUMA scheduling and migration improvement
>> patches that we are working on. These include techniques from
>> AutoNUMA and the sched/numa tree and form a unified basis - it
>> has got all the bits that look good and mergeable.
>>
>
> Thanks for the repost. I have not even started a review yet as I was
> travelling and just online today. It will be another day or two before I can
> start but I was at least able to do a comparison test between autonuma and
> schednuma today to see which actually performs the best. Even without the
> review I was able to stick on similar vmstats as was applied to autonuma
> to give a rough estimate of the relative overhead of both implementations.

Peter, Ingo,

do you have any comments on the performance measurements
by Mel?

Any ideas on how to fix sched/numa or numa/core?

At this point, I suspect the easiest way forward might be
to merge the basic infrastructure from Mel's combined
tree (in -mm? in -tip?), so we can experiment with different
NUMA placement policies on top.

That way we can do apples to apples comparison of the
policies, and figure out what works best, and why.


--
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/