[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0802270045400.31372@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:47:17 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.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
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Let's forget node hotplug for the moment, but what if someone
>
> 1. Changes the machine configuration and adds more nodes, do we expect the
> kernel to be recompiled? Or is it easier to update /etc/sysctl.conf?
> 2. Uses fake NUMA nodes and increases/decreases the number of nodes across
> reboots. Should the kernel be recompiled?
>
That is why the proposal was made to make this a static configuration
option, such as CONFIG_NUM_RECLAIM_THREADS_PER_NODE, that will handle both
situations.
> I am afraid it doesn't. Consider as you scale number of CPU's with the same
> amount of memory, we'll end up making the reclaim problem worse.
>
The benchmark that have been posted suggest that memory locality is more
important than lock contention, as I've already mentioned.
David
--
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