[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [rfc] balance-on-fork NUMA placement
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 04:40:18PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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().

Is there no way to place objects via policy? At least kernel stack and page
tables on x86-64 should be covered by page allocator policy, so the patch
will still be useful.

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: 2007-08-02 05:45    [W:0.087 / U:10.988 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site