[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080227153614.425B.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:52:39 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] page reclaim throttle take2
Hi
> Things are changing, with memory hot-add remove, CPU hotplug , the topology can
> change and is no longer static. One can create fake NUMA nodes on the fly using
> a boot option as well.
agreed.
> Since we're talking of parallel reclaims, I think it's a function of CPUs and
> Nodes. I'd rather keep it as a sysctl with a good default value based on the
> topology. If we end up getting it wrong, the system administrator has a choice.
> That is better than expecting him/her to recompile the kernel and boot that. A
> sysctl does not create problems either w.r.t changing the number of threads, no
> hard to solve race-conditions - it is fairly straight forward
sorry, I don't understand yet.
I think my patch is already function of CPUs and Nodes.
per zone limit indicate propotional #cpus and #nodes.
please tell me the topology that per zone limit doesn't works so good.
I think boot option and sysctl should be used only while -mm
for get various feedback.
end up, we should select more better default, and remove sysctl.
- kosaki
--
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