lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-07 08:21    [W:0.341 / U:0.660 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site