[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:0.084 / U:37.172 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site