| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 10:14:01 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: mike.kravetz@...cle.com, mhocko@...nel.org, guro@...com,
corbet@....net, yaozhenguo1@...il.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlb: Support node specified when using cma for
gigantic hugepages
On 2021/10/11 4:55, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 13:24:08 +0800 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
>> Now the size of CMA area for gigantic hugepages runtime allocation is
>> balanced for all online nodes, but we also want to specify the size of
>> CMA per-node, or only one node in some cases, which are similar with
>
> Please describe in full detail why "we want to" do this. In other
> words, what is the benefit to our users? What are the use-cases, etc?
Sure. On some multi-nodes systems, each node's memory can be different,
allocating the same size of CMA for each node is not suitable for the
low-memory nodes. Meanwhile some workloads like DPDK mentioned by
Zhenguo only need hugepages in one node.
On the other hand, we have some machines with multiple types of memory,
like DRAM and PMEM (persistent memory). On this system, we may want to
specify all the hugepages on DRAM node, or specify the proportion of
DRAM node and PMEM node, to tuning the performance of the workloads.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists