[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1010040805500.2502@router.home>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 08:07:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Rob Mueller <robm@...tmail.fm>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bron Gondwana <brong@...tmail.fm>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Default zone_reclaim_mode = 1 on NUMA kernel is bad forfile/email/web
servers
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > The problem with zone reclaim mainly is created for large apps whose
> > working set is larger than the local node. The special settings are only
> > needing for those applications.
>
> In theory, yes. but please talk with userland developers. They always say
> "Our software work fine on *BSD, Solaris, Mac, etc etc. that's definitely
> linux problem". /me have no way to persuade them ;-)
Do those support NUMA? I would think not. You would have to switch on
interleave at the BIOS level (getting a hardware hack in place to get
rid of the NUMA effects) to make these OSes run right.
> This is one of option. but we don't need to create x86 arch specific
> RECLAIM_DISTANCE. Because practical high-end numa machine are either
> ia64(SGI, Fujitsu) or Power(IBM) and both platform already have arch
> specific definition. then changing RECLAIM_DISTANCE doesn't make any
> side effect on such platform. and if possible, x86 shouldn't have
> arch specific definition because almost minor arch don't have a lot of
> tester and its quality often depend on testing on x86.
>
> attached a patch below.
Looks good.
Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
--
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