[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1104121719430.10966@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Chris McDermott <lcm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend^2] mm: increase RECLAIM_DISTANCE to 30
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > This patch raise zone_reclaim_mode threshold to 30. 30 don't have
> > specific meaning. but 20 mean one-hop QPI/Hypertransport and such
> > relatively cheap 2-4 socket machine are often used for tradiotional
> > server as above. The intention is, their machine don't use
> > zone_reclaim_mode.
>
> I know specifically of pieces of x86 hardware that set the information
> in the BIOS to '21' *specifically* so they'll get the zone_reclaim_mode
> behavior which that implies.
>
That doesn't seem like an argument against this patch, it's an improper
configuration unless the remote memory access has a latency of 2.1x that
of a local access between those two nodes. If that's the case, then it's
accurately following the ACPI spec and the VM has made its policy decision
to enable zone_reclaim_mode as a result. I'm surprised that they'd play
with their BIOS to enable this by default, those, when it's an easily
tunable sysctl.
--
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