[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [rfc] balance-on-fork NUMA placement
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:

> On Tuesday 31 July 2007 07:41, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > I haven't given this idea testing yet, but I just wanted to get some
> > opinions on it first. NUMA placement still isn't ideal (eg. tasks with
> > a memory policy will not do any placement, and process migrations of
> > course will leave the memory behind...), but it does give a bit more
> > chance for the memory controllers and interconnects to get evenly
> > loaded.
> I didn't think slab honored mempolicies by default?
> At least you seem to need to set special process flags.

It does in the sense that slabs are allocated following policies. If you
want to place individual objects then you need to use kmalloc_node().
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: 2007-08-01 01:43    [W:0.094 / U:18.488 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site