[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200707311114.09284.ak@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:14:08 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] balance-on-fork NUMA placement
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 07:41, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I haven't given this idea testing yet, but I just wanted to get some
> opinions on it first. NUMA placement still isn't ideal (eg. tasks with
> a memory policy will not do any placement, and process migrations of
> course will leave the memory behind...), but it does give a bit more
> chance for the memory controllers and interconnects to get evenly
> loaded.
I didn't think slab honored mempolicies by default?
At least you seem to need to set special process flags.
> NUMA balance-on-fork code is in a good position to allocate all of a new
> process's memory on a chosen node. However, it really only starts
> allocating on the correct node after the process starts running.
>
> task and thread structures, stack, mm_struct, vmas, page tables etc. are
> all allocated on the parent's node.
The page tables should be only allocated when the process runs; except
for the PGD.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists