[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    Paul Jackson <> wrote:
    > This policy can provide substantial improvements for jobs that
    > need to place thread local data on the corresponding node, but
    > that need to access large file system data sets that need to
    > be spread across the several nodes in the jobs cpuset in order
    > to fit. Without this patch, especially for jobs that might
    > have one thread reading in the data set, the memory allocation
    > across the nodes in the jobs cpuset can become very uneven.

    It all seems rather ironic. We do vast amounts of development to make
    certain microbenchmarks look good, then run a real workload on the thing,
    find that all those microbenchmark-inspired tweaks actually deoptimised the
    real workload? So now we need to add per-task knobs to turn off the
    previously-added microbenchmark-tweaks.

    What happens if one process does lots of filesystem activity and another
    one (concurrent or subsequent) wants lots of thread-local storage? Won't
    the same thing happen?

    IOW: this patch seems to be a highly specific bandaid which is repairing an
    ill-advised problem of our own making, does it not?
    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: 2006-02-06 05:40    [W:0.020 / U:19.584 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site