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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

Ingo wrote:
> I.e. the 
> spreading out, as it is used today, is rather a global fairness setting 
> for the kernel, and not really a workload-specific access-pattern thing.  
> Right?

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, but I doubt I agree.
It's job specific, and cache specific.

If the job has a number of threads hitting the same data set and:
 1) the data set is faulted in non-uniformly (perhaps some
    job init task reads it in), and
 2) the data set is accessed with little thread locality
    (one thread is as likely as the next to read or write
    a particular page),
then for that job spreading makes sense.

If the cache is one that goes with a data set, such as file system
buffers (page cache) and inode and dentry slab caches, then for that
cache spreading makes sense.  (Yes Andrew, your xfs query is still in my
queue.)

But for many (most?) other jobs and other caches, the default node-local
policy is better.

-- 
                  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/
[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]
  Powered by Linux