lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [resend][PATCH] mm: increase RECLAIM_DISTANCE to 30
Date
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> > > It doesn't determine what the maximum latency to that memory is, it relies
> > > on whatever was defined in the SLIT; the only semantics of that distance
> > > comes from the ACPI spec that states those distances are relative to the
> > > local distance of 10.
> >
> > Right. but do we need to consider fake SLIT case? I know actually such bogus
> > slit are there. but I haven't seen such fake SLIT made serious trouble.
> >
>
> If we can make the assumption that the SLIT entries are truly
> representative of the latencies and are adhering to the semantics
> presented in the ACPI spec, then this means the VM prefers to do zone
> reclaim rather than from other nodes when the latter is 3x more costly.
>
> That's fine by me, as I've mentioned we've done this for a couple years
> because we've had to explicitly disable zone_reclaim_mode for such
> configurations. If that's the policy decision that's been made, though,
> we _could_ measure the cost at boot and set zone_reclaim_mode depending on
> the measured latency rather than relying on the SLIT at all in this case.

ok, got it. thanks.





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-10-12 06:11    [W:0.064 / U:0.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site