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, 18 Oct 2021 21:01:01 +0800
From:   Chen Wandun <chenwandun@...wei.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
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



在 2021/10/18 20:39, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
> 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?
Yes, the intent of NUMA_NO_NODE some time is confused.

Besides,I think NUMA_NO_NODE should consider mempolicy in
most cases in the kernel unless it point out explicitly memory
can be allocated without considering mempolicy.

> .
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists