On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:48:08 +0100 Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 09:35:46AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 10:21:22PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > wrote: > > > Am Monday 14 August 2006 13:04 schrieb Evgeniy Polyakov: > > > > ?* full per CPU allocation and freeing (objects are never freed on > > > > ????????different CPU) > > > > > > Many of your data structures are per cpu, but your underlying allocations > > > are all using regular kzalloc/__get_free_page/__get_free_pages functions. > > > Shouldn't these be converted to calls to kmalloc_node and alloc_pages_node > > > in order to get better locality on NUMA systems? > > > > > > OTOH, we have recently experimented with doing the dev_alloc_skb calls > > > with affinity to the NUMA node that holds the actual network adapter, and > > > got significant improvements on the Cell blade server. That of course > > > may be a conflicting goal since it would mean having per-cpu per-node > > > page pools if any CPU is supposed to be able to allocate pages for use > > > as DMA buffers on any node. > > > > Doesn't alloc_pages() automatically switches to alloc_pages_node() or > > alloc_pages_current()? > > That's not what's wanted. If you have a slow interconnect you always want > to allocate memory on the node the network device is attached to. That's not true on all NUMA systems (that they have a slow interconnect) I think on x86-64 I would prefer if it was distributed evenly or maybe even on the CPU who is finally going to process it. -Andi "not all NUMA is an Altix" - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
