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]
Date:   Mon, 18 Oct 2021 13:39:46 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Chen Wandun <chenwandun@...wei.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, npiggin@...il.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
        wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, guohanjun@...wei.com,
        shakeelb@...gle.com, urezki@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm/vmalloc: fix numa spreading for large hash
 tables

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 08:37:09PM +0800, Chen Wandun wrote:
> Eric Dumazet reported a strange numa spreading info in [1], and found
> commit 121e6f3258fe ("mm/vmalloc: hugepage vmalloc mappings") introduced
> this issue [2].

I think the root problem here is that we have two meanings for
NUMA_NO_NODE.  I tend to read it as "The memory can be allocated from
any node", but here it's used to mean "The memory should be spread over
every node".  Should we split those out as -1 and -2?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists