linux-kernel - Re: Setting stack NUMA policy?

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]

Message-ID: <CALCETrUMS_Rb4Uuw1XEwULzkYYJnaFeLYOYD-7Ao_MjEBABxTw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:43:08 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Setting stack NUMA policy?

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> I'm trying to arrange for a process to have a different memory policy
> on its stack as compared to everything else (e.g. mapped libraries).
> Before I start looking for kludges, is there any clean way to do this?
>
> So far, the best I can come up with is to either parse /proc/self/maps
> on startup or to deduce the stack range from the stack pointer and
> then call mbind.  Then, for added fun, I'll need to hook mmap so that
> I can mbind MAP_STACK vmas that are created for threads.
>
> This is awful.  Is there something better?
>
> (What I really want is a separate policy for MAP_SHARED vs MAP_PRIVATE.)

After a bit more thought, I think that what I *really* want is for the
stack for a thread that has affinity for a single NUMA node to
automatically end up on that node.  This seems like a straightforward
win if it's implementable.

--Andy
--
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/