lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-06 11:27    [W:0.082 / U:2.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site