Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932111AbWBFSpQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 13:45:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932146AbWBFSpQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 13:45:16 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:18156 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932111AbWBFSpN (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 13:45:13 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 19:43:30 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andi Kleen Cc: Christoph Lameter , Paul Jackson , akpm@osdl.org, dgc@sgi.com, steiner@sgi.com, Simon.Derr@bull.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation Message-ID: <20060206184330.GA22275@elte.hu> References: <20060204071910.10021.8437.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com> <200602061811.49113.ak@suse.de> <200602061936.27322.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200602061936.27322.ak@suse.de> 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: 1632 Lines: 35 * Andi Kleen wrote: > > > If you have a much worse worst case NUMA factor it might be different, > > > but even there it would be a good idea to at least spread it out > > > to nearby nodes. > > > > I dont understand you here. What would be the benefit of selecting more > > distant memory over local? I can only imagine that this would be > > beneficial if we know that the data would be used later by other > > processes. > > The benefit would be to not fill up the local node as quickly when you > do something IO (or dcache intensive). And on contrary when you do > something local memory intensive on that node then you won't need to > throw away all the IO caches if they are already spread out. > > The kernel uses of these cached objects are not really _that_ latency > sensitive and not that frequent so it makes sense to spread it out a > bit to nearby nodes. I'm not sure i agree. If a cache isnt that important, then there wont be that much of them (hence they cannot interact with user pages that much), and it wont be used that frequently -> the VM will discard it faster. If there's tons of dentries and inodes and pagecache around, then there must be a reason it's around: it was actively used. In that case we should spread them out only if we know in advance that their use is global, not local - and we should default to local. 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/