linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Take the scheduling domain into account in numa balancin

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]

Message-ID: <a4c781da-7b1f-4ce1-99aa-49bce98bd367@bytedance.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:40:18 +0800
From: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
 dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
 mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com, longman@...hat.com, riel@...riel.com,
 chengming.zhou@...ux.dev, kprateek.nayak@....com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Take the scheduling domain into account in numa
 balancin

Hello Peter,

在 2025/1/3 19:36, Peter Zijlstra 写道:
> Your $subject and actual patches do not patch.
> 
> Your subject suggests you're taking the scheduling domains into account
> for numa balancing, your actual patches are bunch of special case hacks
> that totally ignore the actual sched domains

The subject is indeed inappropriate, but the issues mentioned in this 
patchset still exist, right?

- We should not consider isolated CPUs in numa_stats.
- We should not select isolated CPUs as candidate CPUs.

The current patch handle the above cases with hacks because I thought 
this kind of change is minimal to fix this issue. Perhaps you have a 
better solution for this issue? If so, please let me know, and I am more 
than willing to continue addressing this problem.

Thanks.