From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 15C776B009E for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:45:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:45:16 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [resend][PATCH] mm: increase RECLAIM_DISTANCE to 30 In-Reply-To: <20101008090427.GB5327@balbir.in.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20101008104852.803E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20101008090427.GB5327@balbir.in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Balbir Singh Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , Mel Gorman , Rob Mueller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bron Gondwana , linux-mm , David Rientjes List-ID: On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, Balbir Singh wrote: > I am not sure if this makes sense, since RECLAIM_DISTANCE is supposed > to be a hardware parameter. Could you please help clarify what the > access latency of a node with RECLAIM_DISTANCE 20 to that of a node > with RECLAIM_DISTANCE 30 is? Has the hardware definition of reclaim > distance changed? 10 is the local distance. So 30 should be 3x the latency that a local access takes. > I suspect the side effect is the zone_reclaim_mode is not set to 1 on > bootup for the 2-4 socket machines you mention, which results in > better VM behaviour? Right. -- 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