From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:47:17 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] page reclaim throttle take2 In-Reply-To: <47C51856.7060408@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <47C4EF2D.90508@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080227143301.4252.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <47C4F9C0.5010607@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <47C51856.7060408@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Balbir Singh Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Rik van Riel , Lee Schermerhorn , Nick Piggin List-ID: On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Balbir Singh wrote: > Let's forget node hotplug for the moment, but what if someone > > 1. Changes the machine configuration and adds more nodes, do we expect the > kernel to be recompiled? Or is it easier to update /etc/sysctl.conf? > 2. Uses fake NUMA nodes and increases/decreases the number of nodes across > reboots. Should the kernel be recompiled? > That is why the proposal was made to make this a static configuration option, such as CONFIG_NUM_RECLAIM_THREADS_PER_NODE, that will handle both situations. > I am afraid it doesn't. Consider as you scale number of CPU's with the same > amount of memory, we'll end up making the reclaim problem worse. > The benchmark that have been posted suggest that memory locality is more important than lock contention, as I've already mentioned. David -- 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