[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070802034201.GA32631@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 05:42:01 +0200
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, 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 Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 04:40:18PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> It does in the sense that slabs are allocated following policies. If you
> want to place individual objects then you need to use kmalloc_node().
Is there no way to place objects via policy? At least kernel stack and page
tables on x86-64 should be covered by page allocator policy, so the patch
will still be useful.
-
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