Re: [rfc] balance-on-fork NUMA placement

[Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:14:08AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 July 2007 07:41, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> > I haven't given this idea testing yet, but I just wanted to get some
> > opinions on it first. NUMA placement still isn't ideal (eg. tasks with
> > a memory policy will not do any placement, and process migrations of
> > course will leave the memory behind...), but it does give a bit more
> > chance for the memory controllers and interconnects to get evenly
> > loaded.
> 
> I didn't think slab honored mempolicies by default? 
> At least you seem to need to set special process flags.
> 
> > NUMA balance-on-fork code is in a good position to allocate all of a new
> > process's memory on a chosen node. However, it really only starts
> > allocating on the correct node after the process starts running.
> >
> > task and thread structures, stack, mm_struct, vmas, page tables etc. are
> > all allocated on the parent's node.
> 
> The page tables should be only allocated when the process runs; except
> for the PGD.

We certainly used to copy all page tables on fork. Not any more, but we
must still copy anonymous page tables.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/