[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111214175302.GA2600@alboin.jf.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:53:02 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"lee.schermerhorn@...com" <lee.schermerhorn@...com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v3]numa: add a sysctl to control interleave allocation
granularity from each node to improve I/O performance
> That's what I want to avoid letting each apps to explicitly do it, it's
> a lot of burden.
Usually apps that set NUMA policy can change it. Most don't anyways.
If it's just a script with numactl it's easily changed.
> That's true only workload with heavy I/O wants this. but I don't expect
> it will harm other workloads.
How do you know?
>
> >> Also I don't like having more per task state. Could you compute this
> >> from the address instead even for the process policy case?
> >
> >That sounds good.
> the process policy case doesn't give an address for allocation.
That's true.
-Andi
--
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