Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756161AbYANLbR (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:31:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754685AbYANLbD (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:31:03 -0500 Received: from ns2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49172 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754486AbYANLbB (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:31:01 -0500 From: Andi Kleen Organization: SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Nuernberg, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) To: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] x86: Reduce memory and intra-node effects with large count NR_CPUs Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:30:56 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: travis@sgi.com, Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , Jack Steiner , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20080113183453.973425000@sgi.com> <200801141104.18789.ak@suse.de> <20080114101133.GA23238@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20080114101133.GA23238@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801141230.56403.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1311 Lines: 29 > i think this patchset already gives a net win, by moving stuff from > NR_CPUS arrays into per_cpu area. (Travis please confirm that this is > indeed what the numbers show) Yes that is what his patchkit does, although I'm not sure he has addressed all NR_CPUS pigs yet. The basic idea came out of some discussions we had at kernel summit on this topic. It's definitely a step in the right direction. Another problem is that NR_IRQS currently scales with NR_CPUs which is wrong too (e.g. a hyperthreaded quad core/socket does not need 8 times as many external interrupts as a single core/socket). And there are unfortunately a few drivers that declare NR_IRQS arrays. In general there are more scaling problems like this (e.g. it also doesn't make sense to scale kernel threads for each CPU thread for example). At some point we might need to separate CONFIG_NR_CPUS into a CONFIG_NR_SOCKETS / CONFIG_NR_CPUS to address this, although full dynamic scaling without configuration is best of course. All can just be addressed step by step of course. -Andi -- 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/