From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263081AbVHERNW (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Aug 2005 13:13:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262979AbVHERNM (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Aug 2005 13:13:12 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:61362 "EHLO mx2.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263082AbVHERMy (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Aug 2005 13:12:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 19:12:51 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Adam Litke Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, christoph@lameter.com, dwg@au1.ibm.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Demand faulting for large pages Message-ID: <20050805171251.GZ8266@wotan.suse.de> References: <1123255298.3121.46.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050805155307.GV8266@wotan.suse.de> <1123259847.3121.91.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050805164702.GY8266@wotan.suse.de> <1123261200.3121.104.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1123261200.3121.104.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 12:00:00PM -0500, Adam Litke wrote: > On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 11:47, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 11:37:27AM -0500, Adam Litke wrote: > > > On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 10:53, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 10:21:38AM -0500, Adam Litke wrote: > > > > > Below is a patch to implement demand faulting for huge pages. The main > > > > > motivation for changing from prefaulting to demand faulting is so that > > > > > huge page allocations can follow the NUMA API. Currently, huge pages > > > > > are allocated round-robin from all NUMA nodes. > > > > > > > > I think matching DEFAULT is better than having a different default for > > > > huge pages than for small pages. > > > > > > I am not exactly sure what the above means. Is 'DEFAULT' a system > > > default numa allocation policy? > > > > It's one of the four numa policies: DEFAULT, PREFERED, INTERLEAVE, BIND > > > > It just means allocate on the local node if possible, otherwise fall back. > > > > You said you wanted INTERLEAVE by default, which i think is a bad idea. > > It should be only optional like in all other allocations. > > I tried to say that allocations are _currently_ INTERLEAVE (aka > round-robin) but that I want it to be configurable. So I think we are > in agreement here. Ok, but the way to configure it should be the standard mempolicy infrastructure (that is how it works in SLES9 too) -Andi