From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757221AbXHBDmQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 23:42:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753556AbXHBDmF (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 23:42:05 -0400 Received: from mail.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:50024 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754244AbXHBDmC (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 23:42:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 05:42:01 +0200 From: Nick Piggin To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Andi Kleen , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List Subject: Re: [rfc] balance-on-fork NUMA placement Message-ID: <20070802034201.GA32631@wotan.suse.de> References: <20070731054142.GB11306@wotan.suse.de> <200707311114.09284.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 04:40:18PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > On Tuesday 31 July 2007 07:41, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > I haven't given this idea testing yet, but I just wanted to get some > > > opinions on it first. NUMA placement still isn't ideal (eg. tasks with > > > a memory policy will not do any placement, and process migrations of > > > course will leave the memory behind...), but it does give a bit more > > > chance for the memory controllers and interconnects to get evenly > > > loaded. > > > > I didn't think slab honored mempolicies by default? > > At least you seem to need to set special process flags. > > It does in the sense that slabs are allocated following policies. If you > want to place individual objects then you need to use kmalloc_node(). Is there no way to place objects via policy? At least kernel stack and page tables on x86-64 should be covered by page allocator policy, so the patch will still be useful.