Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:44:29 +1000
From: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: manfred@colorfullife.com, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use numa policy API for boot time policy
Message-ID: <20040609154429.GA6152@krispykreme>
References: <20040605034356.1037d299.ak@suse.de> <40C12865.9050803@colorfullife.com> <20040605041813.75e2d22d.ak@suse.de> <20040605023211.GA16084@krispykreme> <20040605122239.4a73f5e8.ak@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040605122239.4a73f5e8.ak@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1132
Lines: 26

 
> It would be a one liner change to allow process policy interleaving 
> for orders > 0 in mempolicy. But I'm not sure how useful it is, since
> the granuality would be really bad.

OK. Id like to take a quick look at order > 0 allocations during boot
to see if its worth it. The ppc64 page size is small and we might be
doing a significant number of order 1 allocations.

> Have you ever tried to switch to implement a vmalloc_interleave() for these
> tables instead? My bet is that it will perform better.

Im warming to this idea. We would need a per arch override, since there
is a trade off here between interleaving and TLB usage.

We also have a problem in 2.6 on our bigger machines where our dcache
hash and inode hash cache are limited to MAX_ORDER (16MB on ppc64). By
using vmalloc would allow us to interleave the memory and allocate more
than 16MB for those hashes.

Anton
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/