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:   Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:30:17 -0700
From:   Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
To:     "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 07/13] node: Add heterogenous memory access attributes

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 06:07:02PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com> writes:
> 
> > Heterogeneous memory systems provide memory nodes with different latency
> > and bandwidth performance attributes. Provide a new kernel interface for
> > subsystems to register the attributes under the memory target node's
> > initiator access class. If the system provides this information, applications
> > may query these attributes when deciding which node to request memory.
> >
> > The following example shows the new sysfs hierarchy for a node exporting
> > performance attributes:
> >
> >   # tree -P "read*|write*" /sys/devices/system/node/nodeY/classZ/
> >   /sys/devices/system/node/nodeY/classZ/
> >   |-- read_bandwidth
> >   |-- read_latency
> >   |-- write_bandwidth
> >   `-- write_latency
> >
> > The bandwidth is exported as MB/s and latency is reported in nanoseconds.
> > Memory accesses from an initiator node that is not one of the memory's
> > class "Z" initiator nodes may encounter different performance than
> > reported here. When a subsystem makes use of this interface, initiators
> > of a lower class number, "Z", have better performance relative to higher
> > class numbers. When provided, class 0 is the highest performing access
> > class.
> 
> How does the definition of performance relate to bandwidth and latency here?. The
> initiator in this class has the least latency and high bandwidth? Can there
> be a scenario where both are not best for the same node? ie, for a
> target Node Y, initiator Node A gives the highest bandwidth but initiator
> Node B gets the least latency. How such a config can be represented? Or is
> that not possible?

I am not aware of a real platform that has an initiator-target pair with
better latency but worse bandwidth than any different initiator paired to
the same target. If such a thing exists and a subsystem wants to report
that, you can register any arbitrary number of groups or classes and
rank them according to how you want them presented.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists