Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:23:37 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation |
| |
* Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
> On Monday 06 February 2006 11:11, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > Of course there might be some corner cases where using local memory > > > for caching is still better (like mmap file IO), but my guess is that > > > it isn't a good default. > > > > /tmp is almost certainly one where local memory is better. > > Not sure. What happens if someone writes a 1GB /tmp file on a 1GB > node?
well, if the pagecache is filled on a node above a certain ratio then one would have to spread it out forcibly. But otherwise, try to keep things as local as possible, because that will perform best. This is different from the case Paul's patch is addressing: workloads which are known to be global (and hence spreading out is the best-performing allocation).
(for which problem i suggested a per-mount/directory/file locality-of-reference attribute in another post.)
Ingo - 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/
| |