From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBEItBet432192 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:55:11 -0500 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id iBEIt7YB430006 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:55:10 -0700 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iBEIt7ZF001564 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:55:07 -0700 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:59:50 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] NUMA boot hash allocation interleaving Message-ID: <9250000.1103050790@flay> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Brent Casavant , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, ak@suse.de List-ID: > NUMA systems running current Linux kernels suffer from substantial > inequities in the amount of memory allocated from each NUMA node > during boot. In particular, several large hashes are allocated > using alloc_bootmem, and as such are allocated contiguously from > a single node each. Yup, makes a lot of sense to me to stripe these, for the caches that are global (ie inodes, dentries, etc). Only question I'd have is didn't Manfred or someone (Andi?) do this before? Or did that never get accepted? I know we talked about it a while back. M, -- 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: aart@kvack.org