[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1332159657.18960.321.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:20:57 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Dan Smith <danms@...ibm.com>,
Bharata B Rao <bharata.rao@...il.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/26] sched/numa
On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 13:42 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> It's the standard space/time tradeoff. Once solution wants more
> storage, the other wants more faults.
>
> Note scanners can use A/D bits which are cheaper than faults.
I'm not convinced.. the scanner will still consume time even if the
system is perfectly balanced -- it has to in order to determine this.
So sure, A/D/other page table magic can make scanners faster than faults
however you only need faults when you're actually going to migrate a
task. Whereas you always need to scan, even in the stable state.
So while the per-instance times might be in favour of scanning, I'm
thinking the accumulated time is in favour of faults.
--
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