From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 18:42:31 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel Reply-To: riel@nl.linux.org Subject: Re: kswapd @ 60-80% CPU during heavy HD i/o. In-Reply-To: <20000502221405.O1389@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Roger Larsson , linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 2 May 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 02:06:20PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > do the smart things I was mentining some day ago in linux-mm > > > with NUMA. > > > > How do you want to take care of global page balancing with > > this "optimisation"? > > You don't. With NUMA, the memory is inherently unbalanced, and you > don't want the allocator to smooth over the different nodes. Ermmm, a few days ago (yesterday?) you told me on irc that we needed to balance between zones ... maybe we need some way to measure "memory load" on a zone and only allocate from a different NUMA zone if: local_load remote_load ---------- >= ----------- 1.0 load penalty for local->remote (or something more or less like this ... only use one of the nodes one hop away if the remote load is <90% of the local load, 70% for two hops, 30% for > 2 hops ...) We could use the scavenge list in combination with more or less balanced page reclamation to determine memory load on the different nodes... regards, Rik -- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength. Wanna talk about the kernel? irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/