Re: [PATCH 0/3] NUMA boot hash allocation interleaving
From: Martin J. Bligh
Date: Tue Dec 14 2004 - 16:43:23 EST
>> Yup, makes a lot of sense to me to stripe these, for the caches that
>> are global (ie inodes, dentries, etc). Only question I'd have is
>> didn't Manfred or someone (Andi?) do this before? Or did that never
>> get accepted? I know we talked about it a while back.
> Are you thinking of the 2006-06-05 patch from Andi about using
> the NUMA policy API for boot time allocation?
> If so, that patch was accepted, but affects neither allocations
> performed via alloc_bootmem nor __get_free_pages, which are
> currently used to allocate these hashes. vmalloc, however, does
> behave as desired with Andi's patch.
Nope, was for the hashes, but I think maybe it was all vapourware.
> Which is why vmalloc was chosen to solve this problem. There were
> other more complicated possible solutions (e.g. multi-level hash tables,
> with the bottommost/largest level being allocated across all nodes),
> however those would have been so intrusive as to be unpalatable.
> So the vmalloc solution seemed reasonable, as long as it is used
> only on architectures with plentiful vmalloc space.
Yup, seems like a reasonable approach.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/