From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [rfc] balance-on-fork NUMA placement Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:14:08 +0200 References: <20070731054142.GB11306@wotan.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20070731054142.GB11306@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707311114.09284.ak@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: On Tuesday 31 July 2007 07:41, Nick Piggin wrote: > I haven't given this idea testing yet, but I just wanted to get some > opinions on it first. NUMA placement still isn't ideal (eg. tasks with > a memory policy will not do any placement, and process migrations of > course will leave the memory behind...), but it does give a bit more > chance for the memory controllers and interconnects to get evenly > loaded. I didn't think slab honored mempolicies by default? At least you seem to need to set special process flags. > NUMA balance-on-fork code is in a good position to allocate all of a new > process's memory on a chosen node. However, it really only starts > allocating on the correct node after the process starts running. > > task and thread structures, stack, mm_struct, vmas, page tables etc. are > all allocated on the parent's node. The page tables should be only allocated when the process runs; except for the PGD. -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