linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/13] Reconcile NUMA balancing decisions with the load balancer v3

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 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:   Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:52:16 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] Reconcile NUMA balancing decisions with the load
 balancer v3

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 02:49:11PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Patches 4-5 are Vincent's and use very similar code patterns and logic
> > between NUMA and load balancer. Patch 6 is a fix to Vincent's work that
> > is necessary to avoid serious imbalances being introduced by the NUMA
> 
> Yes the test added in load_too_imbalanced() by patch 5 doesn't seem to
> be a good choice.
> I haven't remove it as it was done by your patch 6 but it might worth
> removing it directly if a new version is needed

Aside of that, Vincent's patches look good to me.