Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964865AbWBFXar (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:30:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964867AbWBFXar (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:30:47 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:13698 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964865AbWBFXar (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:30:47 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 00:29:11 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Paul Jackson , ak@suse.de, 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: <20060206232911.GB13566@elte.hu> References: <200602061936.27322.ak@suse.de> <20060206184330.GA22275@elte.hu> <20060206120109.0738d6a2.pj@sgi.com> <20060206200506.GA13466@elte.hu> <20060206204111.GA20495@elte.hu> <20060206210701.GA24446@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 1548 Lines: 35 * Christoph Lameter wrote: > > but a single object cannot be allocated both locally and globally! > > (well, it could be, for read-mostly workloads, but lets ignore that > > possibility) So instead of letting chance determine it, it is the most > > natural thing to let the object (or its container) determine which > > strategy to use - not the workload. This avoids the ambiguity at its > > core. > > We want cpusets to make a round robin allocation within the memory > assigned to the cpuset. There is no global allocation that I am aware > of. i think we might be talking about separate things, so lets go one step back. firstly, i think what you call roundrobin is what i call 'global'. [roundrobin allocation is what is best for a cache that is accessed in a 'global' way - as opposed to cached data that is accessed in a 'local' way.] secondly, i'm not sure i understood it correctly why you want to have all (mostly filesystem related) allocations within selected cpusets go in a roundrobin way. My understanding so far was that you wanted this because the workload attached to that cpuset was using the filesystem objects in a 'global' way: i.e. from many different nodes, with no particular locality of reference. Am i mistaken about this? 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/