![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
--Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote (on Saturday, February 07, 2004 04:54:03 +0100): > "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com> writes: > >> If we really want to do good testing, we should make a fake NUMA config >> that can run a 4x SMP box as fake NUMA, with half the memory in each >> "node" and half the processors ... but I never got around to coding that ;-) > > I have such a patch for x86-64 if anybody is interested in that. > > x86-64 low level NUMA is quite different from IA32 NUMA though so it > would be a bit difficult to port. Not quite sure what you mean ... I was driving at pretending an SMP box was NUMA ... but the x86_64 is already NUMA ... are you grouping nodes together into single nodes with 2 cpus each? What might be intriguing is to use Nick's domains stuff to create a heirarchy for the scheduler where we have 1 cpu nodes and 2 cpu nodes above that, but still keep the normal NUMA stuff flat for mem allocation. What might be interesting is a heirarchy where if this is the HT connections of cpu layouts: 1 --- 2 | | | | | | 3 --- 4 then domains of (1,2,3) (2,3,4) (1,3,4) (1 2 4), with a view to restricting the "double hop" traffic as much as possible. But I'm not sure the domains code copes with multiple overlapping domains - Nick? Andi, do you already set up the mem allocation fallback zonelists like that? M. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:00 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||