lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [tip:sched/numa] sched/numa: Introduce sys_numa_{t,m}bind()

* David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 May 2012, tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Commit-ID: 3a0fea961b98d1838f35dba51a639d40f4a5589f
> > Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/3a0fea961b98d1838f35dba51a639d40f4a5589f
> > Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> > AuthorDate: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 17:56:08 +0100
> > Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> > CommitDate: Fri, 18 May 2012 08:16:27 +0200
> >
> > sched/numa: Introduce sys_numa_{t,m}bind()
> >
>
> This depends on 931ea9d1a6e0 ("rcu: Implement per-domain
> single-threaded call_srcu() state machine") from core/rcu.

Indeed ...

I'll rebase it to a (by that time probably upstream) srcu commit
after the merge window, once we have more fixes, have
incorporated suggestions, etc. - but it's still essentially an
RFC topic: [*]

Fundamentally, do people agree with the 'single home node'
approach to begin with? We could turn it into a node mask,
but that complicates things.

For example if there's a hierarchy of nodes, low latency and
high latency ones, then it might be valid to limit to a high
level (high latency) node and not specify the lower level node -
while the kernel would still know about the lower level nodes as
well.

Managing locality in a non-trivial cache hierarchy is hard :-/

Thanks,

Ingo

[*] I should probably move this to the tip:RFC/sched/numa
branch, to make it clear what the status of the branch is,
from the commit notification emails.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-21 11:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans