Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:22:39 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Use numa policy API for boot time policy |
| |
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:32:12 +1000 Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org> 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.
-Andi - 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/
| |