From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 02:23:13 +0200 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [rfc] balance-on-fork NUMA placement Message-ID: <20070801002313.GC31006@wotan.suse.de> References: <20070731054142.GB11306@wotan.suse.de> <200707311114.09284.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200707311114.09284.ak@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andi Kleen Cc: Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:14:08AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > 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. We certainly used to copy all page tables on fork. Not any more, but we must still copy anonymous page tables. -- 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