Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 08 Oct 2001 12:20:59 -0700 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: 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/
|  |