lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Whining about NUMA. :) [Was whining about 2.5...]
>> That's what I was planning on ... we'd need m x n classzones, where m
>> was the number of levels, and n the number of nodes. Each search would
>> obviously be through m classzones. I'll go poke at the current code some more.
>
> You say "numbers of levels" as in each level being a given number of nodes
> on that "level" distance ?

Yes.

For example, if the only different access speeds you have were "on the local
node" vs "on another node", and access times to all *other* nodes were the
same, you'd have 2 levels.

If you have "on the local node" (10 ns) vs "on any node 1 hop away" (100ns),
"on any node 2 hops away" (110ns), that'd be 3 levels. (latency numbers picked
out of my portable random number generator ;-) ).

If the latencies on a 4 level system turn out to be 10,100,101,102 then it's only
going to be worth defining 2 levels. If they turn out to be 10,100,1000, 10000,
then it'll (probably) be worth doing 4 ....

M.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:04    [W:0.071 / U:2.124 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site