| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <526FF131.3070105@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:32:33 -0700 From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> To: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> Subject: [Question] : tie a task to a cluster when it shares memory resources Hi all, I am not expert on the NUMA area and the scheduler but I was wondering the following: On numa a process can define a memory policy to optimize access because remote memory access is suboptimal. On a multicluster (aka multipackage), eg. Bi-Xeon 4 cores, the scheduler load balancing can spawn/balance a task to the second cluster even if the task is resulting from a fork or a pthread_create. If I am correct that could impact the performances due to L2 cache misses, no ? Won't it be more efficient to tie a task to a cluster when it shares memory resources with another task on the same cluster ? and when the task does 'exec', this constraint is removed. Thanks -- Daniel -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists