From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 88CC26B0089 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:06:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:56:03 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [resend][PATCH] mm: increase RECLAIM_DISTANCE to 30 In-Reply-To: <20101008165930.GH5327@balbir.in.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20101008104852.803E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20101008090427.GB5327@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20101008165930.GH5327@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: > * Christoph Lameter [2010-10-08 10:45:16]: > > > 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. > > > > Does this patch then imply that we should do zone_reclaim only for 3x > nodes and not 2x nodes as we did earlier. It implies that zone reclaim is going to be automatically enabled if the maximum latency to the memory farthest away is 3 times or more that of a local memory access. -- 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