Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750825AbWBFJKo (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 04:10:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750826AbWBFJKn (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 04:10:43 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:38296 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750825AbWBFJKm (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 04:10:42 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:09:27 +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: <20060206090927.GA11933@elte.hu> References: <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> <20060206084001.GA5600@elte.hu> <20060206010304.e79ca2e5.pj@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060206010304.e79ca2e5.pj@sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.2 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.2 required=5.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -2.8 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts 0.6 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: 1336 Lines: 33 * Paul Jackson wrote: > It's job specific, and cache specific. > > If the job has a number of threads hitting the same data set and: > 1) the data set is faulted in non-uniformly (perhaps some > job init task reads it in), and > 2) the data set is accessed with little thread locality > (one thread is as likely as the next to read or write > a particular page), > then for that job spreading makes sense. > > If the cache is one that goes with a data set, such as file system > buffers (page cache) and inode and dentry slab caches, then for that > cache spreading makes sense. (Yes Andrew, your xfs query is still in > my queue.) > > But for many (most?) other jobs and other caches, the default > node-local policy is better. what type of objects need to be spread (currently)? It seems that your current focus is on filesystem related objects: pagecache, inodes, dentries - correct? Is there anything else that needs to be spread? In particular, does any userspace mapped memory need to be spread - or is it handled with other mechanisms? 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/