From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:25:48 -0600 From: Matt Mackall Subject: Re: [patch 02/23] SLUB: Rename NUMA defrag_ratio to remote_node_defrag_ratio Message-ID: <20071108172548.GW17536@waste.org> References: <20071107011130.382244340@sgi.com> <20071107011226.844437184@sgi.com> <20071108145044.GB2591@skynet.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071108145044.GB2591@skynet.ie> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mel Gorman Cc: Christoph Lameter , akpm@linux-foundatin.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 02:50:44PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > > - if (!s->defrag_ratio || get_cycles() % 1024 > s->defrag_ratio) > > + if (!s->remote_node_defrag_ratio || > > + get_cycles() % 1024 > s->remote_node_defrag_ratio) > > I cannot figure out what the number of cycles currently showing on the TSC > have to do with a ratio :(. I could semi-understand if we were counting up > how many cycles were being spent trying to pack objects but that does not > appear to be the case. The comment didn't help a whole lot either. It felt > like a cost for packing, not a ratio It's just a random number generator. And a bad one: lots of arches return 0. And I believe at least one of them has some NUMA support. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. -- 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