linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] numa: introduce per-cgroup numa balancing locality, statistic

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:   Fri, 19 Jul 2019 18:47:11 +0200
From:   Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To:     王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     keescook@...omium.org, hannes@...xchg.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mcgrof@...nel.org,
        mhocko@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, riel@...riel.com,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] numa: introduce per-cgroup numa balancing locality,
 statistic

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:41:36AM +0800, 王贇  <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> Actually whatever the memory node sets or cpu allow sets is, it will
> take effect on task's behavior regarding memory location and cpu
> location, while the locality only care about the results rather than
> the sets.
My previous response missed much of the context, so it was a bit off.

I see what you mean by the locality now. Alas, I can't assess whether
it's the right thing to do regarding NUMA behavior that you try to
optimize (i.e. you need an answer from someone more familiar with NUMA
balancing).

Michal