[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 03/19/2012 02:20 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.

When you migrate a vnode, you don't need the faults at all. You know
exactly which pages need to be migrated, you can just queue them
immediately when you make that decision.

The scanning therefore only needs to pick up the stragglers and can be
set to a very low frequency.

error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-19 13:27    [W:0.113 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site