lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.019 / U:120.212 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site