On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 10:11:20AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > However, one still does not know which memory section (vma) is allocated
> > on which nodes. And this may be important since critical data may need to
>
> Maybe. Well sure of things could be maybe important. Or maybe not.
> Doesn't seem like a particularly strong case to add a lot of ugly
> code though.
We gradually need to fix the deficiencies of the policy layer. Calling
fixes "ugly code" and refusing to discuss solutions does not help anyone.
> > External memory policy management is a necessary feature for system
> > administration, batch process scheduling as well as for testing and
> > debugging a system.
>
> I'm not convinced of this at all. Most of these things proposed so far
> can be done much simpler with 90% of the functionality (e.g. just swapoff
> per process for migration) , and I haven't seen a clear rationale except
> for lots of maybes that the missing 10% are worth all the complexity
> you seem to plan to add.
Have you ever had the challenge to work with large HPC applications on a
large NUMA system? Which things? Many HPC apps do not use swap space
at all and we likely wont be using swap for page migration (see Marcelo's
work on a migration cache). All I have heard is you imagining complex
solutions ("performance counters" etc) to things that would be simple if
the policy layer would be up to the task.
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |