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, 4 Jun 2018 05:59:40 -0700
From:   Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/19] sched/numa: Set preferred_node based on best_cpu

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2018-06-04 14:23:36]:

> OK, the above matches the description, but I'm puzzled by the remainder:
>
> >
> > -		if (ng->active_nodes > 1 && numa_is_active_node(env.dst_nid, ng))
> > -			sched_setnuma(p, env.dst_nid);
> > +		if (nid != p->numa_preferred_nid)
> > +			sched_setnuma(p, nid);
> >  	}
>
> That seems to entirely loose the active_node thing, or are you saying
> best_cpu already includes that? (Changelog could use a little help there
> I suppose)

I think checking for active_nodes before calling sched_setnuma was a
mistake.

Before this change, we may be retaining numa_preferred_nid to be the
source node while we select another node with better numa affinity to
run on. So we are creating a situation where we force a thread to run on
a node which is not going to be its preferred_node. So in the course of
regular load balancing, this task might then be moved to set
preferred_node which is actually not the preferred_node.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists