[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 14:04 +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > If you boot with memcg compiled in, that's taking an equivalent amount
    > of memory per-page.
    > If you can bear the memory loss when memcg is compiled in even when
    > not enabled, you sure can bear it on NUMA systems that have lots of
    > memory, so it's perfectly ok to sacrifice a bit of it so that it
    > performs like not-NUMA but you still have more memory than not-NUMA.
    I think the overhead of memcg is quite insane as well. And no I cannot
    bear that and have it disabled in all my kernels.

    NUMA systems having lots of memory is a false argument, that doesn't
    mean we can just waste tons of it, people pay good money for that
    memory, they want to use it.

    I fact, I know that HPC people want things like swap-over-nfs so they
    can push infrequently running system crap out into swap so they can get
    these few extra megabytes of memory. And you're proposing they give up
    ~100M just like that?

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-03-19 14:29    [W:0.028 / U:243.872 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site