lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/8] sched, numa, mm: Add adaptive NUMA affinity support
Date
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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-29 21:01    [W:0.140 / U:1.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site