linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/19] sched/numa: Set preferred_node based on best

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 4 Jun 2018 06:48:52 -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 15:39:53]:

> > >
> > > 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.
> 
> Then your Changelog had better explain all that, no?
> 

I had mentioned
"Modify to set the preferred node based of best_cpu."
I will update that to describe the situation.