linux-kernel - Re: [patch,v3,repost 00/10] make I/O path allocations more numa-friendly

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

Date:	Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:05:04 -0500
From:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Subject: Re: [patch,v3,repost 00/10] make I/O path allocations more numa-friendly

James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> writes:

> On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 12:59 -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > This patch set makes memory allocations for data structures used in
>> > the I/O path more numa friendly by allocating them from the same numa
>> > node as the storage device.  I've only converted a handful of drivers
>> > at this point.  My testing is limited by the hardware I have on hand.
>> > Using these patches, I was able to max out the bandwidth of the storage
>> > controller when issuing I/O from any node on my 4 node system.  Without
>> > the patch, I/O from nodes remote to the storage device would suffer a
>> > penalty ranging from 6-12%.  Given my relatively low-end setup[1], I
>> > wouldn't be surprised if others could show a more significant performance
>> > advantage.
>> >
>> > This is a repost of the last posting.  The only changes are additional
>> > reviewed-by/acked-by tags.  I think this version is ready for inclusion.
>> > James, would you mind taking a look?
>> 
>> James?  Do you have any objections to including this for 3.8?
>
> Probably for 3.9 since the 3.8 merge window is upon us.

OK.

> Do we actually have any performance numbers from the big system people?
> That's really a must for this type of work.

I'm working on getting some numbers.

> It's missing acks from the affected drivers; that's not a show stopper
> but it would be better to have them.

Well, we could trim the driver list to those that have ACKs, but the
driver changes are trivial.

Thanks,
Jeff
--
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/