From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:24:02 -0600 From: Brent Casavant Reply-To: Brent Casavant Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] NUMA boot hash allocation interleaving In-Reply-To: <19030000.1103054924@flay> Message-ID: References: <9250000.1103050790@flay> <20041214191348.GA27225@wotan.suse.de> <19030000.1103054924@flay> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > --On Tuesday, December 14, 2004 20:13:48 +0100 Andi Kleen wrote: > > > I originally was a bit worried about the TLB usage, but it doesn't > > seem to be a too big issue (hopefully the benchmarks weren't too > > micro though) > > Well, as long as we stripe on large page boundaries, it should be fine, > I'd think. On PPC64, it'll screw the SLB, but ... tough ;-) We can either > turn it off, or only do it on things larger than the segment size, and > just round-robin the rest, or allocate from node with most free. Is there a reasonably easy-to-use existing infrastructure to do this? I didn't find anything in my examination of vmalloc itself, so I gave up on the idea. And just to clarify, are you saying you want to see this before inclusion in mainline kernels, or that it would be nice to have but not necessary? Thanks, Brent -- Brent Casavant If you had nothing to fear, bcasavan@sgi.com how then could you be brave? Silicon Graphics, Inc. -- Queen Dama, Source Wars -- 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