From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 00:46:02 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: [PATCH] per-zone kswapd process Message-ID: <20020916074602.GK3530@holomorphy.com> References: <3D815C8C.4050000@us.ibm.com> <3D81643C.4C4E862C@digeo.com> <20020913045938.GG2179@holomorphy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: brief message Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Andrew Morton , Dave Hansen , "Martin J. Bligh" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 09:06:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> I still don't see why it's per zone and not per node. It seems strange >>> that a wee little laptop would be running two kswapds? >>> kswapd can get a ton of work done in the development VM and one per >>> node would, I expect, suffice? On Friday 13 September 2002 06:59, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Machines without observable NUMA effects can benefit from it if it's >> per-zone. On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 07:44:30AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > How? The notion was that some level of parallelism would be bestowed on the single-node case by using separate worker threads on a per-zone basis, as they won't have more than one node to spawn worker threads for at all. This notion apparently got shot down somewhere, and I don't care to rise to its defense. I've lost enough debates this release to know better than to try. Bill -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/