linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 5/5] sched,numa: find the preferred nid with complex NUMA topology

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:	Mon, 13 Oct 2014 03:17:00 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...e.de, chegu_vinod@...com,
	mingo@...nel.org, efault@....de, vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 5/5] sched,numa: find the preferred nid with complex
 NUMA topology

On 10/12/2014 10:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:37:30PM -0400, riel@...hat.com wrote:
>> +static int preferred_group_nid(struct task_struct *p, int nid)
>> +{
>> +	nodemask_t nodes;
>> +	int hops;
>> +
>> +	/* Direct connections between all NUMA nodes. */
>> +	if (sched_numa_topology_type == NUMA_DIRECT)
>> +		return nid;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * On a system with glueless mesh NUMA topology, group_weight
>> +	 * scores nodes according to the number of NUMA hinting faults on
>> +	 * both the node itself, and on nearby nodes.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (sched_numa_topology_type == NUMA_GLUELESS_MESH) {
>> +		unsigned long score, max_score = 0;
>> +		int node, max_node = nid;
>> +
>> +		hops = sched_domains_numa_levels;
>> +
>> +		for_each_online_node(node) {
>> +			score = group_weight(p, node, hops);
>> +			if (score > max_score) {
>> +				max_score = score;
>> +				max_node = node;
>> +			}
>> +		}
>> +		return max_node;
>> +	}
>
> This too is O(nr_nodes^2), right?
>
It is, but I suspect the glueless mesh topologies are
never larger than on the order of a dozen nodes or so.

Would you prefer me to make the optimization I proposed
in the other email, or should I just add in a comment
stating that that optimization could be made if it turns
out to be necessary?
--
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/