Re: [PATCH resend^2] mm: increase RECLAIM_DISTANCE to 30
From: Dave Hansen
Date: Tue Apr 12 2011 - 20:49:15 EST
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 17:22 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Dave Hansen wrote:
> I know specifically of pieces of x86 hardware that set the information
> > in the BIOS to '21' *specifically* so they'll get the zone_reclaim_mode
> > behavior which that implies.
> That doesn't seem like an argument against this patch, it's an improper
> configuration unless the remote memory access has a latency of 2.1x that
> of a local access between those two nodes. If that's the case, then it's
> accurately following the ACPI spec and the VM has made its policy decision
> to enable zone_reclaim_mode as a result.
Heh, if the kernel broke on every system that didn't follow _some_ spec,
it wouldn't boot in very many places.
When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you're a
BIOS developer, you start thwacking at the kernel with munged ACPI
tables instead of boot options. Folks do this in the real world, and I
think if we can't put their names and addresses next to the code that
works around this, we might as well put the DMI strings of their
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/