[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 00/26] sched/numa
On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 13:42 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> It's the standard space/time tradeoff. Once solution wants more
> storage, the other wants more faults.
> Note scanners can use A/D bits which are cheaper than faults.

I'm not convinced.. the scanner will still consume time even if the
system is perfectly balanced -- it has to in order to determine this.

So sure, A/D/other page table magic can make scanners faster than faults
however you only need faults when you're actually going to migrate a
task. Whereas you always need to scan, even in the stable state.

So while the per-instance times might be in favour of scanning, I'm
thinking the accumulated time is in favour of faults.

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-19 13:23    [W:0.153 / U:2.152 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site