[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190423084444.GB11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 10:44:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: 王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] numa: introduce per-cgroup numa balancing
locality, statistic
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:11:24AM +0800, 王贇 wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
> +
> +enum memcg_numa_locality_interval {
> + PERCENT_0_9,
> + PERCENT_10_19,
> + PERCENT_20_29,
> + PERCENT_30_39,
> + PERCENT_40_49,
> + PERCENT_50_59,
> + PERCENT_60_69,
> + PERCENT_70_79,
> + PERCENT_80_89,
> + PERCENT_90_100,
> + NR_NL_INTERVAL,
> +};
> +
> +struct memcg_stat_numa {
> + u64 locality[NR_NL_INTERVAL];
> +};
If you make that 8 it fits a single cacheline. Do you really need the
additional resolution? If so, then 16 would be the next logical amount
of buckets. 10 otoh makes no sense what so ever.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists