[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141014064720.GA11483@worktop>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:47:20 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...e.de, chegu_vinod@...com,
mingo@...nel.org, efault@....de, vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/5] sched,numa: build table of node hop distance
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 09:28:04AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 10/12/2014 09:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:37:26PM -0400, riel@...hat.com wrote:
> >>+ sched_domains_numa_hops = kzalloc(sizeof(int) * nr_node_ids * nr_node_ids, GFP_KERNEL);
> >>+ if (!sched_domains_numa_hops)
> >>+ return;
> >
> >That's potentially a _BIG_ table (1M for a 512 node system).
> >The node_distance has magic allocations and is of u8 size, is there any
> >way we can re-use node_distance and avoid a second O(n^2) allocation?
>
> You are right, this should be a u8 at the least.
>
> Beyond that, I am not convinced that merging things into
> the same array is worthwhile, since (IIRC) nr_node_ids
> should be set to the actual number of nodes on the system
> by then.
The thing is, it looks like all you do is compare hop distance, and the
order of the hop distances is the exact same order as the regular numa
distance. I could not find a place where you use the actual hop value.
So if all you're interested in is the relative ordering, that should be
the same for both.
--
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