[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1108180758290.7903@p34.internal.lan>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:59:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>
To: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-numa@...r.kernel.org,
Alan Piszcz <ap@...arrain.com>
Subject: Re: 3.1-rc2: CONFIG_NUMA Question
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Américo Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a SuperMicro X8DTH-6F motherboard with 2 cpus it has NUMA options in
>> the BIOS; what parameters/should I be using for the NUMA options in the
>> kernel?
>>
>> | | [*] Numa Memory Allocation and Scheduler Support | |
>> | | [ ] Old style AMD Opteron NUMA detection | |
>> | | [*] ACPI NUMA detection | |
>> | | [ ] NUMA emulation | |
>> | | (6) Maximum NUMA Nodes (as a power of 2) | |
>>
>
> That is Intel processor, right? If so, the things you selected here are enough,
Hi, yes-- two Intel Xeon E5645s.
> the rest two is not what you need.
Ok.
>
>> Specifically, the maximum number of NUMA nodes? Will this help to increase
>> performance of large memory allocations/is there any downside
>> to enabling this feature?
>
> The max of NUMA nodes is specified by CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT,
> in your case, it is 6, which means it supports up to 2^6 nodes.
Ok, is there any overhead having more than is needed?
>
> If your hardware supports NUMA, yes, that certainly help to increase
> the performance.
Nice, thanks.
Justin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists