From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx116.postini.com [74.125.245.116]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EA7C06B0306 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:53:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:53:02 -0800 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [patch v3]numa: add a sysctl to control interleave allocation granularity from each node to improve I/O performance Message-ID: <20111214175302.GA2600@alboin.jf.intel.com> References: <1323655125.22361.376.camel@sli10-conroe> <20111213190632.GA5830@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20111213203856.GA6312@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <1323830027.22361.401.camel@sli10-conroe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1323830027.22361.401.camel@sli10-conroe> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Shaohua Li Cc: Christoph Lameter , lkml , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , Jens Axboe , "lee.schermerhorn@hp.com" , David Rientjes > That's what I want to avoid letting each apps to explicitly do it, it's > a lot of burden. Usually apps that set NUMA policy can change it. Most don't anyways. If it's just a script with numactl it's easily changed. > That's true only workload with heavy I/O wants this. but I don't expect > it will harm other workloads. How do you know? > > >> Also I don't like having more per task state. Could you compute this > >> from the address instead even for the process policy case? > > > >That sounds good. > the process policy case doesn't give an address for allocation. That's true. -Andi -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org