[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101008165930.GH5327@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 22:29:30 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
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>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [resend][PATCH] mm: increase RECLAIM_DISTANCE to 30
* Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> [2010-10-08 10:45:16]:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
> > I am not sure if this makes sense, since RECLAIM_DISTANCE is supposed
> > to be a hardware parameter. Could you please help clarify what the
> > access latency of a node with RECLAIM_DISTANCE 20 to that of a node
> > with RECLAIM_DISTANCE 30 is? Has the hardware definition of reclaim
> > distance changed?
>
> 10 is the local distance. So 30 should be 3x the latency that a local
> access takes.
>
Does this patch then imply that we should do zone_reclaim only for 3x
nodes and not 2x nodes as we did earlier.
> > I suspect the side effect is the zone_reclaim_mode is not set to 1 on
> > bootup for the 2-4 socket machines you mention, which results in
> > better VM behaviour?
>
> Right.
>
--
Three Cheers,
Balbir
--
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