Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 07 Apr 2009 08:17:39 +0200 | From | Brice Goglin <> | Subject | Re: Off topic: Numactl "distance" wrong |
| |
KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >> That's not enough. You would need to redo all the zone fallback tables >> in the VM that are initialized based on topology, do new scheduler >> topologies and all kind of other stuff. > > I think this is very good viewpoint. > > The rebuilding zone fallback table and scheduler topologies need to add > new lock.
Could you clarify how changing numa distances could break zone fallback tables and scheduler topologies?
> Oh well, who need memory and scheduler performance regression? > Then, its /sys interface isn't so useful.
If changing the slit table at runtime is too hard, what about changing it at boot through a new kernel command-line parameter?
> I don't think the manual setting of node distance improve > opteron's (or another small machine) performance.
Well, some user-space application may use these distances to improve their binding. Maybe nobody does yet because numa distances have never been available on x86_64 boxes...
Brice
| |