From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [RFC] Make the slab allocator observe NUMA policies Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:51:39 +0100 References: <200511150434.15094.ak@suse.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200511151751.40035.ak@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: steiner@sgi.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, alokk@calsoftinc.com List-ID: On Tuesday 15 November 2005 17:43, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Monday 14 November 2005 20:08, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > I have thought about various ways to modify kmem_getpages() but these > > > do not fit into the basic current concept of the slab allocator. The > > > proposed method is the cleanest approach that I can think of. I'd be > > > glad if you could come up with something different but AFAIK simply > > > moving the policy application down in the slab allocator does not work. > > > > I haven't checked all the details, but why can't it be done at the > > cache_grow layer? (that's already a slow path) > > cache_grow is called only after the lists have been checked. Its the same > scenario as I described. So retry the check? > > > If it's not possible to do it in the slow path I would say the design is > > incompatible with interleaving then. Better not do it then than doing it > > wrong. > > If MPOL_INTERLEAVE is set then multiple kmalloc() invocations will > allocate each item round robin on each node. That is the intended function > of MPOL_INTERLEAVE right? memory policy was always only designed to work on pages, not on smaller objects. So no. -Andi -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org