On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 04:40:18PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, 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. > > It does in the sense that slabs are allocated following policies. If you > want to place individual objects then you need to use kmalloc_node().
Is there no way to place objects via policy? At least kernel stack and page tables on x86-64 should be covered by page allocator policy, so the patch will still be useful. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
