* Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > If you have a much worse worst case NUMA factor it might be different,
> > > but even there it would be a good idea to at least spread it out
> > > to nearby nodes.
> >
> > I dont understand you here. What would be the benefit of selecting more
> > distant memory over local? I can only imagine that this would be
> > beneficial if we know that the data would be used later by other
> > processes.
>
> The benefit would be to not fill up the local node as quickly when you
> do something IO (or dcache intensive). And on contrary when you do
> something local memory intensive on that node then you won't need to
> throw away all the IO caches if they are already spread out.
>
> The kernel uses of these cached objects are not really _that_ latency
> sensitive and not that frequent so it makes sense to spread it out a
> bit to nearby nodes.
I'm not sure i agree. If a cache isnt that important, then there wont be
that much of them (hence they cannot interact with user pages that
much), and it wont be used that frequently -> the VM will discard it
faster. If there's tons of dentries and inodes and pagecache around,
then there must be a reason it's around: it was actively used. In that
case we should spread them out only if we know in advance that their use
is global, not local - and we should default to local.
Ingo
-
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]
