linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCH 00/19] Numa aware LRU lists and shrinkers

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: <50FD6815.90900@parallels.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:08:53 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <xfs@....sgi.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 00/19] Numa aware LRU lists and shrinkers

On 11/28/2012 03:14 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> [PATCH 09/19] list_lru: per-node list infrastructure
> 
> This makes the generic LRU list much more scalable by changing it to
> a {list,lock,count} tuple per node. There are no external API
> changes to this changeover, so is transparent to current users.
> 
> [PATCH 10/19] shrinker: add node awareness
> [PATCH 11/19] fs: convert inode and dentry shrinking to be node
> 
> Adds a nodemask to the struct shrink_control for callers of
> shrink_slab to set appropriately for their reclaim context. This
> nodemask is then passed by the inode and dentry cache reclaim code
> to the generic LRU list code to implement node aware shrinking.

I have a follow up question that popped up from a discussion between me
and my very American friend Johnny Wheeler, also known as Johannes
Weiner (CC'd). I actually remember we discussing this, but don't fully
remember the outcome. And since I can't find it anywhere, it must have
been in a media other than e-mail. So I thought it would do no harm in
at least documenting it...

Why are we doing this per-node, instead of per-zone?

It seems to me that the goal is to collapse all zones of a node into a
single list, but since the number of zones is not terribly larger than
the number of nodes, and zones is where the pressure comes from, what do
we really gain from this?

--
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/