linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Add per-socket weight support for multi-socket systems in weighted interleave

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: <aB4tgSP2r-2s-1ce@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 12:29:53 -0400
From: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@...com>, joshua.hahnjy@...il.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
	dan.j.williams@...el.com, ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com,
	kernel_team@...ynix.com, honggyu.kim@...com, yunjeong.mun@...com,
	Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Add per-socket weight support for multi-socket systems in
 weighted interleave

On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 12:31:31PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> Anyhow, short term I'd like us to revisit what info we present from HMAT
> (and what we get from CXL topology descriptions which have pretty much everything we
> might want).
> 

Generally I think if there is new data to enrich the environment, we
should try to collect that first before laying down requirements for new
interfaces / policies.  So tl;dr: "This first, please!"

(I know we discussed this at LSFMM, dropped out of my memory banks)

~Gregory