[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Use numa policy API for boot time policy
    On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:32:12 +1000
    Anton Blanchard <> wrote:

    > Hi,
    > > That's correct. It will only work for order 0 allocations.
    > >
    > > But it sounds quite bogus anyways to move the complete hash tables
    > > to another node anyways. It would probably be better to use vmalloc()
    > > and a interleaving mapping for it. Then you would get the NUMA bandwidth
    > > benefit even for accessing single tables.
    > I posted some before and after numbers when we merged Manfreds patch,
    > it would be interesting to see the same thing with your patch applied.
    > Im not only worried about NUMA bandwidth but keeping the amount of
    > memory left in all the nodes reasonably even. Allocating all the big
    > hashes on node 0 will decrease that balance.

    It would be a one liner change to allow process policy interleaving
    for orders > 0 in mempolicy. But I'm not sure how useful it is, since
    the granuality would be really bad.

    Have you ever tried to switch to implement a vmalloc_interleave() for these
    tables instead? My bet is that it will perform better.

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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.028 / U:14.684 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site