From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Allow selected nodes to be excluded from MPOL_INTERLEAVE masks Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:33:01 +0200 References: <1185566878.5069.123.camel@localhost> <1185812028.5492.79.camel@localhost> <20070801101651.GA9113@linux-sh.org> In-Reply-To: <20070801101651.GA9113@linux-sh.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ansi_x3.4-1968" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200708011233.02103.ak@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Paul Mundt Cc: Lee Schermerhorn , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-mm , Christoph Lameter , Nishanth Aravamudan , kxr@sgi.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Eric Whitney List-ID: On Wednesday 01 August 2007 12:16:51 Paul Mundt wrote: > Well, it's not so much the interleave that's the problem so much as > _when_ we interleave. The problem with the interleave node mask at system > init is that the kernel attempts to spread out data structures across > these nodes, which results in us being completely out of memory by the > time we get to userspace. After we've booted, supporting MPOL_INTERLEAVE > is not so much of a problem, applications just have to be careful with > their allocations. I assume you got a mostly flat latency machine with a few additional small nodes for special purposes, right? Would the problem be solved if you just had a per arch CONFIG to disable interleaving at boot? That would be really simple. -Andi (who is a bit sceptical of more and more boot options) -- 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