[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49DAF003.1070605@inria.fr>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 08:17:39 +0200
From: Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Chris Worley <worleys@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Off topic: Numactl "distance" wrong
KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> That's not enough. You would need to redo all the zone fallback tables
>> in the VM that are initialized based on topology, do new scheduler
>> topologies and all kind of other stuff.
>
> I think this is very good viewpoint.
>
> The rebuilding zone fallback table and scheduler topologies need to add
> new lock.
Could you clarify how changing numa distances could break
zone fallback tables and scheduler topologies?
> Oh well, who need memory and scheduler performance regression?
> Then, its /sys interface isn't so useful.
If changing the slit table at runtime is too hard, what about
changing it at boot through a new kernel command-line parameter?
> I don't think the manual setting of node distance improve
> opteron's (or another small machine) performance.
Well, some user-space application may use these distances
to improve their binding. Maybe nobody does yet because
numa distances have never been available on x86_64 boxes...
Brice
--
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