linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86, sched: allow topolgies where NUMA nodes share an LLC

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: <20171109140717.qmdrnbdykjsejkti@pd.tnic>
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 15:07:17 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
        tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...ux.intel.com,
        rientjes@...gle.com, imammedo@...hat.com, prarit@...hat.com,
        toshi.kani@...com, brice.goglin@...il.com, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86, sched: allow topolgies where NUMA nodes share
 an LLC

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 04:00:38PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> I'd argue that those two end up looking pretty much the same to an app.
> The only difference is that the slice-local and slice-remote cache hits
> have slightly different access latencies.  I don't think it's enough to
> notice.

So if it is not enough to notice, why do we even bother? I.e., is
there any workload showing any advantages at all from the resources
partitioning?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.