From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:38:25 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] GFP_THISNODE for the slab allocator Message-Id: <20060916083825.ba88eee8.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060916044847.99802d21.pj@sgi.com> References: <20060914220011.2be9100a.akpm@osdl.org> <20060914234926.9b58fd77.pj@sgi.com> <20060915002325.bffe27d1.akpm@osdl.org> <20060916044847.99802d21.pj@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Paul Jackson Cc: clameter@sgi.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, rientjes@google.com List-ID: On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:48:47 -0700 Paul Jackson wrote: > Andrew, replying to pj: > > > We shouldn't be heavily tuning for this case, and I am not aware of any > > > real world situations where real users would have reasonably determined > > > otherwise, had they had full realization of what was going on. > > > > gotcha ;) > > In the thrill of the hunt, I overlooked one itsy bitsy detail. > > This load still seems a tad artificial to me. What real world load > would run with 2/3's of the nodes having max'd out memory? Pretty much all loads? If you haven't consumed most of the "container"'s memory then you have overprovisioned its size. It could just be pagecache. -- 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