From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 05:42:01 +0200 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [rfc] balance-on-fork NUMA placement Message-ID: <20070802034201.GA32631@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: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Andi Kleen , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 04:40:18PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, 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. > > It does in the sense that slabs are allocated following policies. If you > want to place individual objects then you need to use kmalloc_node(). Is there no way to place objects via policy? At least kernel stack and page tables on x86-64 should be covered by page allocator policy, so the patch will still be useful. -- 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