Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:28:27 +0100 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [discuss] Re: [PATCH 1/3] Zone reclaim V3: main patch |
| |
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 03:19:36PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > I would use > LOCAL_DISTANCE or perhaps if you really want > > a new constant with value 12-15. > > One may define RECLAIM_DISTANCE to be 12 for x86_64 in topology.h > in order to get zone reclaim earlier for the opteron clusters. I would > think though that large opteron clusters also have distances > 20. > > My experience is that at 20 systems do not need zone reclaim yet.
I really cannot confirm your experience here.
> > > > RECLAIM_DISTANCE can be set per arch if the default is not okay. > > > > Well if anything it would be per system - perhaps need to make > > it a boot option or somesuch later. > > The idea here was to avoid any manual configuration. The numa distances
Sure as a default this makes sense.
I'm just questioning your default values.
> must related in some real way to performance (at least per arch) in order > for the automatic determination of zone reclaim to make sense. We could > have a boot time override but then RECLAIM_DISTANCE needs to be a > variable not a macro.
The macro can be always later defined to a variable, no problem.
-Andi
- 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/
| |