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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250512082402.285-1-rakie.kim@sk.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 17:23:55 +0900
From: Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@...com>
To: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
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>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Add per-socket weight support for multi-socket systems in weighted interleave

On Fri, 9 May 2025 12:29:53 -0400 Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net> wrote:
> 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
> 

Thank you for your response and for providing clear direction.

I fully agree with your suggestion that we should first focus on gathering
and exposing the relevant data before moving forward with new policies or
interfaces.

In practice, I believe many of the proposed enhancements can only function
meaningfully if we have a solid understanding of the memory topology and
interconnect structure?and if that information is reliably accessible in
userspace.

Without such data, there is a risk that even well-intentioned policies may
end up diverging from real hardware behavior, or possibly degrading system
performance.

Thank you again for pointing us in the right direction. I'll continue to
revisit my ideas along this path.

Best regards,
Rakie