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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 10:13:53 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <>
To:     Borislav Petkov <>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <>,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86, sched: allow topolgies where NUMA nodes share
 an LLC

On 11/09/2017 06:07 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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?

If you want the *absolutely* best latency available, you turn on SNC.
You get a small boost to slice-local access and a slight penalty to
remote-slice access compared to when Sub-NUMA-Clustering is off.

You can measure this for sure, but I'll still say that most folks will
never notice.  In addition, if you have access interleaved everywhere,
the "slice-local boost" and "remote-slice penalty" roughly cancel
each-other out.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists