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