From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:16:33 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch 02/23] SLUB: Rename NUMA defrag_ratio to remote_node_defrag_ratio In-Reply-To: <20071108172548.GW17536@waste.org> Message-ID: References: <20071107011130.382244340@sgi.com> <20071107011226.844437184@sgi.com> <20071108145044.GB2591@skynet.ie> <20071108172548.GW17536@waste.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Matt Mackall Cc: Mel Gorman , akpm@linux-foundatin.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Matt Mackall wrote: > > 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. Do we have a better one? Something with minimal processing overhead? I'd be glad to switch it. -- 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