linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: CONFIG_NR_ZONES

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:	Tue, 1 Mar 2016 01:06:22 +0100
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Mark <markk@...ra.co.uk>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: CONFIG_NR_ZONES_EXTENDED

On 29.2.2016 18:55, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:
>> On 02/02/2016 06:42 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> So if you want ZONE_DMA, you're limited to 512 NUMA nodes?
>>>
>>> That seems reasonable.
>>
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply, but it seems that with !SPARSEMEM, or with
>> SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP, reducing NUMA nodes isn't even necessary, because
>> SECTIONS_WIDTH is zero (see the diagrams in linux/page-flags-layout.h). In
>> my brief tests with 4.4 based kernel with SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP it seems that
>> with 1024 NUMA nodes and 8192 CPU's, there's still 7 bits left (i.e. 6 with
>> CONFIG_NR_ZONES_EXTENDED).
>>
>> With the danger of becoming even more complex, could the limit also depend
>> on CONFIG_SPARSEMEM/VMEMMAP to reflect that somehow?
> 
> In this case it's already part of the equation because:
> 
> config ZONE_DEVICE
>        depends on MEMORY_HOTPLUG
>        depends on MEMORY_HOTREMOVE
> 
> ...and those in turn depend on SPARSEMEM.

Fine, but then SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP should be still an available subvariant of
SPARSEMEM with SECTION_WIDTH=0.