Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation

Ingo asked:
> what type of objects need to be spread (currently)? It seems that your 
> current focus is on filesystem related objects: 

In addition to the filesystem related objects called out in
this current patch set, we also have some xfs directory
and inode caches.  An xfs patch is winding its way toward
lkml that will enhance the xfs cache creation calls a little,
so that we can pick off the particular slab caches we need to
be able to spread, while leaving other xfs slab caches with
the default node-local policy.

>  does any userspace mapped memory need to be spread 

I don't think so, but I am not entirely confident of my answer
tonight.  I would expect the applications I care about to place mapped
pages by being careful to make the first access (load or store) of that
page from a cpu on the node where they wanted that page placed.

So, yes, either mostly filesystem related objects, or all such.

I'm not sure which.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] Virtualization/containers: startup
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH, V2] i386: instead of poisoning .init zone, change protection bits to force a fault
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]