netdev - Re: [net-next-2.6 RFC PATCH] e1000e: NUMA changes, add Node= parameter

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]

Date:	Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:17:24 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To:	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"gospo@...hat.com" <gospo@...hat.com>,
	"bphilips@...ell.com" <bphilips@...ell.com>,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 RFC PATCH] e1000e: NUMA changes, add Node=
 parameter

On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 09:46 -0700, Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, David Miller wrote:
> 
> > From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
> > Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:28:10 -0700
> > 
> > > Although a module parameter is not the preferred way for
> > > in-tree modules, this problem is not solvable in ethtool without
> > > mod params because of needing the information at probe time to
> > > control early allocations of memory.  Ideally there would even be
> > > a way to control the node where the memory of the netdev struct
> > > would be allocated also.
> > 
> > Sorry, no.
> > 
> > Various folks are working on infrastructure such that the Numa node of
> > everything other than the netdev struct can be dynamically choosen.
> > 
> > I'm sure we can find a way to dynamically reallocate and re-attach the
> > netdev structure as well.
> 
> okay, thanks for your comments, we can carry this patch out-of-tree.  
> 
> Unfortunately as I said in the comments there is really no way around this 
> *now* other than some fixed binding scheme, none of which are one size 
> fits all, which is why I (reluctantly) supplied the module parameter 
> patch.
> 
> I'm interested to hear more about the "various folks' infrastructure" 
> plans, I'll do some research.  I can definitely provide testing.
[...]

I think David may be referring to this:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/172386

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html