[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Fw: [PATCH] NUMA Slab Allocator
Martin J. Bligh wrote:

>That'd be my inclination .... but OTOH, we do that for pagecache OK.
The page cache doesn't have a global hash table.

> Dunno,
>I'm torn. Depends if there's locality on the file access or not, I guess.
>Is there any *harm* in doing it node local .... perhaps creating a node
>mem pressure imbalance (OTOH, there's loads of stuff that does that anyway ;-))
The harm is slower kmem_cache_free and a lower hit ratio for the per-cpu
caches: kmem_cache_free must identify and return wrong node objects, and
due to these returns, the per-cpu array is more often empty in

IIRC someone from SGI wrote that they have seen bad performance in
fork-bomb tests on large cpu count systems which might be caused by
inter-node traffic on the mm_struct structure and that they think that a
numa aware allocator would help. As far as I know no tests were done to
very that assumption.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:11    [W:0.039 / U:27.608 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site