Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750772AbWBFIlV (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 03:41:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750776AbWBFIlU (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 03:41:20 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:60889 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750772AbWBFIlU (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 03:41:20 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 09:40:01 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Paul Jackson Cc: akpm@osdl.org, dgc@sgi.com, steiner@sgi.com, Simon.Derr@bull.net, ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clameter@sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation Message-ID: <20060206084001.GA5600@elte.hu> References: <20060204071910.10021.8437.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com> <20060204154944.36387a86.akpm@osdl.org> <20060205203358.1fdcea43.akpm@osdl.org> <20060205215052.c5ab1651.pj@sgi.com> <20060205220204.194ba477.akpm@osdl.org> <20060206061743.GA14679@elte.hu> <20060205232253.ddbf02d7.pj@sgi.com> <20060206074334.GA28035@elte.hu> <20060206001959.394b33bc.pj@sgi.com> <20060206082258.GA1991@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060206082258.GA1991@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=AWL autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1206 Lines: 27 * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > We normally run with different policies, in the same box, on different > > cpusets at the same time. But this might be because some cpusets > > -need- the memory spreading, and the others that don't are left to the > > default policy. > > so in practice, the memory spreading is in fact a global setting, used > by all cpusets that matter? That seems to support Andrew's observation > that our assumptions / defaults are bad, pretty much independently of > the workload. in other words: the spreading out likely _hurts_ performance in the typical case (which prefers node-locality), but when you are using multiple cpusets you want to opt for fairness between projects, over opportunistic optimizations such as node-local allocations. I.e. the spreading out, as it is used today, is rather a global fairness setting for the kernel, and not really a workload-specific access-pattern thing. Right? Ingo - 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/