linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] handle memoryless nodes more appropriately

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:   Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:56:58 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        rppt@...nel.org, vbabka@...e.cz, mhocko@...e.com
Cc:     willy@...radead.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, mingo@...nel.org,
        aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com, ying.huang@...el.com,
        hannes@...xchg.org, osalvador@...e.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] handle memoryless nodes more appropriately

On 19.10.23 09:36, Qi Zheng wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Currently, in the process of initialization or offline memory, memoryless
> nodes will still be built into the fallback list of itself or other nodes.
> 
> This is not what we expected, so this patch series removes memoryless
> nodes from the fallback list entirely.

What's the end result of this change -- IOW why do we care? Patch #1 
mentions "which will reduce runtime overhead." and patch #2 mentions 
"This will incur some runtime overhead.". IIUC the comment in patch #1 
correctly, these changes don't fix anything, correct?

Did you look into showing a performance gain?

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb