linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/49] Automatic NUMA Balancing v10

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]

Date:	Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:18:07 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
	Alex Shi <lkml.alex@...il.com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/49] Automatic NUMA Balancing v10


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:

> > This is prototype only but what I was using as a reference 
> > to see could I spot a problem in yours. It has not been even 
> > boot tested but avoids remote->remote copies, contending on 
> > PTL or holding it longer than necessary (should anyway)
> 
> So ... because time is running out and it would be nice to 
> progress with this for v3.8, I'd suggest the following 
> approach:
> 
>  - Please send your current tree to Linus as-is. You already 
>    have my Acked-by/Reviewed-by for its scheduler bits, and my
>    testing found your tree to have no regression to mainline,
>    plus it's a nice win in a number of NUMA-intense workloads.
>    So it's a good, monotonic step forward in terms of NUMA
>    balancing, very close to what the bits I'm working on need as
>    infrastructure.
> 
>  - I'll rebase all my devel bits on top of it. Instead of
>    removing the migration bandwidth I'll simply increase it for
>    testing - this should trigger similarly aggressive behavior.
>    I'll try to touch as little of the mm/ code as possible, to
>    keep things debuggable.

One minor last-minute request/nit before you send it to Linus, 
would you mind doing a:

   CONFIG_BALANCE_NUMA => CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING

rename please? (I can do it for you if you don't have the time.)

CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING is really what fits into our existing NUMA 
namespace, CONFIG_NUMA, CONFIG_NUMA_EMU - and, more importantly, 
the ordering of words follows the common generic -> less generic 
ordering we do in the kernel for config names and methods.

So it would fit nicely into existing Kconfig naming schemes:

   CONFIG_TRACING
   CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING
   CONFIG_EVENT_TRACING

etc.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/