From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:01:14 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [rfc] balance-on-fork NUMA placement Message-ID: <20070731080114.GA12367@elte.hu> References: <20070731054142.GB11306@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070731054142.GB11306@wotan.suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: * Nick Piggin wrote: > This patch uses memory policies to attempt to improve this. It > requires that we ask the scheduler to suggest the child's new CPU > earlier in the fork, but that is not a fundamental difference. no fundamental objections, but i think we could simply move sched_fork() to the following place: > @@ -989,10 +990,13 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process( > if (retval) > goto fork_out; > > + cpu = sched_fork_suggest_cpu(clone_flags); > + mpol_arg = mpol_prefer_cpu_start(cpu); > + > retval = -ENOMEM; > p = dup_task_struct(current); > if (!p) > - goto fork_out; > + goto fork_mpol; > > rt_mutex_init_task(p); _after_ the dup_task_struct(). Then change sched_fork() to return a CPU number - hence we dont have a separate sched_fork_suggest_cpu() initialization function, only one, obvious sched_fork() function. Agreed? Ingo -- 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