[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:0.019 / U:102.116 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site