[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    Andrew wrote:
    > IOW: this patch seems to be a highly specific bandaid which is repairing an
    > ill-advised problem of our own making, does it not?

    I am mystified. I am unable to imagine how you see this memory
    spreading patchset as a response to some damage caused by previous

    Nothing we have ever done has deprived us of the ability to run a
    job in a cpuset, where the application code of that job manages the
    per-node placement of thread local storage, while the kernel evenly
    distributes the placement of file system activity.

    We never had that ability, in the mainline Linux kernel.

    Ingo describes one alternative workload, where this alternative
    strategy is useful.

    What Ingo described involved a particular job on a 64 CPU, 1 TB system.
    We have systems with multiple cpusets of such sizes, each running
    such a job, all on the same system, at once.

    Big shared systems, running performance critical jobs simultaneously,
    present different challenges than seen on embeddeds, workstations or
    smaller multi-use servers.

    The driving force here is not our prior kernel design decisions.

    The driving force is the economics of big systems, paid for by larger
    organizations for use across multiple divisions or departments or
    universities or commands whatever unit. Systems obtained for running
    performance critical, highly parallel, data and computationally
    intensive applications. They require job isolation of cpu and memory,
    application management of memory use for thread local storage, and
    uniform behaviour across the cpuset of kernel memory usage.

    Each such job -may- require this alternative page and slab cache
    memory spreading strategy, which is why it's a per-cpuset choice.

    > What happens if one process does lots of filesystem activity and another
    > one (concurrent or subsequent) wants lots of thread-local storage? Won't
    > the same thing happen?

    Don't run two jobs in the same cpuset that have conflicting
    memory requirements.

    We're talking dedicated cpusets, with dedicated cpus and memory
    nodes, for a given job. Or, in Ingo's example, essentially a
    single cpuset, covering the entire system, running one job.

    In either case, some workloads require a different strategy for
    such kernel memory placement, which would be the wrong default for most

    So, the user must tell the kernel it needs this.

    I won't rest till it's the best ...
    Programmer, Linux Scalability
    Paul Jackson <> 1.925.600.0401
    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: 2006-02-06 07:59    [W:0.038 / U:7.516 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site