Re: [PATCH 1/1] network memory allocator.

[Andi Kleen]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:48:08 +0100
Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 (arnd@xxxxxxxx) 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 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/