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: <20190628151508.GB6909@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:15:08 +0100
From:   Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To:     "Suthikulpanit, Suravee" <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/topology: Improve load balancing on AMD EPYC

On Wed, 26 Jun, at 09:18:01PM, Suthikulpanit, Suravee wrote:
> 
> We use 16 to designate 1-hop latency (for different node within the same socket).
> For across-socket access, since the latency is greater, we set the latency to 32
> (twice the latency of 1-hop) not aware of the RECLAIM_DISTANCE at the time.
 
I guess the question is: Is the memory latency of a remote node 1 hop
away 1.6x the local node latency?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ