From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 02:26:39 +0200 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [rfc] balance-on-fork NUMA placement Message-ID: <20070803002639.GC14775@wotan.suse.de> References: <20070731054142.GB11306@wotan.suse.de> <200707311114.09284.ak@suse.de> <20070802034201.GA32631@wotan.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 Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 12:58:13PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > 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. > > Implementing policies on an object level introduces significant allocator > overhead. Tried to do it in SLAB which created a mess. > > Add a (slow) kmalloc_policy? Strict Object round robin for interleave > right? It probably needs its own RR counter otherwise it disturbs the per > task page RR. I guess interleave could be nice for other things, but for this, I just want MPOL_BIND to work. The problem is that the pagetable copying etc codepaths cover a lot of code and some of it (eg pagetable allocation) is used for other paths as well.. so I was just hoping to do something less intrusive for now if possible. > For interleave kmalloc() does allocate the slabs round robin not the > objects. -- 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