Re: [resend][PATCH] mm: increase RECLAIM_DISTANCE to 30

[Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

* KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> [2010-10-12 13:07:35]:

> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > 
> > > > It doesn't determine what the maximum latency to that memory is, it relies 
> > > > on whatever was defined in the SLIT; the only semantics of that distance 
> > > > comes from the ACPI spec that states those distances are relative to the 
> > > > local distance of 10.
> > > 
> > > Right. but do we need to consider fake SLIT case? I know actually such bogus
> > > slit are there. but I haven't seen such fake SLIT made serious trouble.
> > > 
> > 
> > If we can make the assumption that the SLIT entries are truly 
> > representative of the latencies and are adhering to the semantics 
> > presented in the ACPI spec, then this means the VM prefers to do zone 
> > reclaim rather than from other nodes when the latter is 3x more costly.
> > 
> > That's fine by me, as I've mentioned we've done this for a couple years 
> > because we've had to explicitly disable zone_reclaim_mode for such 
> > configurations.  If that's the policy decision that's been made, though, 
> > we _could_ measure the cost at boot and set zone_reclaim_mode depending on 
> > the measured latency rather than relying on the SLIT at all in this case.
> 
> ok, got it. thanks.
>

Could we please document the change and help people understand why
with newer kernels they may see the value of zone_reclaim_mode change
on their systems and how to set it back if required. 

-- 
	Three Cheers,
	Balbir

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>