Paul Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This policy can provide substantial improvements for jobs that
> need to place thread local data on the corresponding node, but
> that need to access large file system data sets that need to
> be spread across the several nodes in the jobs cpuset in order
> to fit. Without this patch, especially for jobs that might
> have one thread reading in the data set, the memory allocation
> across the nodes in the jobs cpuset can become very uneven.
It all seems rather ironic. We do vast amounts of development to make
certain microbenchmarks look good, then run a real workload on the thing,
find that all those microbenchmark-inspired tweaks actually deoptimised the
real workload? So now we need to add per-task knobs to turn off the
previously-added microbenchmark-tweaks.
What happens if one process does lots of filesystem activity and another
one (concurrent or subsequent) wants lots of thread-local storage? Won't
the same thing happen?
IOW: this patch seems to be a highly specific bandaid which is repairing an
ill-advised problem of our own making, does it not?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
