Messages in this thread | | | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/8] sched, numa, mm: Add adaptive NUMA affinity support | Date | Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:34:15 -0800 |
| |
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> writes:
> + > + down_write(&mm->mmap_sem); > + for (vma = mm->mmap; vma; vma = vma->vm_next) { > + if (!vma_migratable(vma)) > + continue; > + change_protection(vma, vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end, vma_prot_none(vma), 0); > + }
What happens if I have a 1TB process? Will you really unmap all of the 1TB in that timer?
> > case MPOL_PREFERRED: > if (pol->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL) > - polnid = numa_node_id(); > + best_nid = numa_node_id(); > else > - polnid = pol->v.preferred_node; > + best_nid = pol->v.preferred_node;
So that's not the local node anymore? That will change behaviour for people using the NUMA affinity APIs explicitely. I don't think that's a good idea, if someone set the affinity explicitely the kernel better follow that.
If you want to change behaviour for non DEFAULT like this please use a new policy type.
-Andi
-- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
| |