Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 7 Feb 2005 17:35:59 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: prezeroing V6 [2/3]: ScrubD |
| |
Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > Look at the early posts. I plan to put that up on the web. I have some > > > stats attached to the end of this message from an earlier post. > > > > But that's a patch-specific microbenchmark, isn't it? Has this work been > > benchmarked against real-world stuff? > > No its a page fault benchmark. Dave Miller has done some kernel compiles > and I have some benchmarks here that I never posted because they do not > show any material change as far as I can see. I will be posting that soon > when this is complete (also need to do the same for the atomic page fault > ops and the prefaulting patch).
OK, thanks. That's important work. After all, this patch is a performance optimisation.
> > > > Should we be managing the kernel threads with the kthread() API? > > > > > > What would you like to manage? > > > > Startup, perhaps binding the threads to their cpus too. > > That is all already controllable in the same way as the swapper.
kswapd uses an old API.
> Each > memory node is bound to a set of cpus. This may be controlled by the > NUMA node configuration. F.e. for nodes without cpus.
kthread_bind() should be able to do this. From a quick read it appears to have shortcomings in this department (it expects to be bound to a single CPU).
We should fix kthread_bind() so that it can accomodate the kscrub/kswapd requirement. That's one of the _reasons_ for using the provided infrastructure rather than open-coding around it. - 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/
| |