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]
Message-ID: <20190719164711.GB854@blackbody.suse.cz>
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ