From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757695Ab1LNRxK (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:53:10 -0500 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:55404 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755200Ab1LNRxF (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:53:05 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="85714641" Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:53:02 -0800 From: Andi Kleen To: Shaohua Li Cc: Christoph Lameter , lkml , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , Jens Axboe , "lee.schermerhorn@hp.com" , David Rientjes Subject: Re: [patch v3]numa: add a sysctl to control interleave allocation granularity from each node to improve I/O performance Message-ID: <20111214175302.GA2600@alboin.jf.intel.com> References: <1323655125.22361.376.camel@sli10-conroe> <20111213190632.GA5830@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20111213203856.GA6312@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <1323830027.22361.401.camel@sli10-conroe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1323830027.22361.401.camel@sli10-conroe> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > That's what I want to avoid letting each apps to explicitly do it, it's > a lot of burden. Usually apps that set NUMA policy can change it. Most don't anyways. If it's just a script with numactl it's easily changed. > That's true only workload with heavy I/O wants this. but I don't expect > it will harm other workloads. How do you know? > > >> Also I don't like having more per task state. Could you compute this > >> from the address instead even for the process policy case? > > > >That sounds good. > the process policy case doesn't give an address for allocation. That's true. -Andi