[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)
    On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 11:58:03AM +0100, Rogier Wolff wrote:
    > Now if we design the NUMA support correctly, just filling in "disk has
    > a seek-time of 10ms, and 20Mb per second throughput when accessed
    > linearly" NUMA may on it's own "tune" the swapper to do the right
    > thing. And once parametrized like this, we can also handle say a
    > leftover piece of framebuffer!

    In NUMA we have to deal with RAM and PCI buses that are faster when accessed in
    the local node and slower when accessed in a remote node. Addressing such
    single problem is much much less generic than being able to say "plug in this
    thing and threat it as memory that goes so fast". I believe we don't need all
    such generic interface because it looks quite a bit of overhead, certainly not
    at the first approch.

    We could easily choose to bind a swap space to a certain node if irqs happens
    in the local node and the controller of the disk is attached to a local PCI bus
    indeed. But that still has much less generalization than the one you supposed.
    And I believe anything that trying to optimize non-RAM backed virtual memory
    accesses is worthless because the numa toys have some houndred giga of ram so
    you're not going to use anything other than RAM as beckend for virtual
    memory... There are much more worthwhile parts to optimize.

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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.022 / U:3.760 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site