Re: [PATCH 0/8] Announcement: Enhanced NUMA scheduling with adaptiveaffinity

[Ingo Molnar]

* Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > > the pages over both nodes in use.
> >
> > I'd not go as far as to claim that to be a general rule: the 
> > correct placement depends on the system and workload 
> > specifics: how much memory is on each node, how many tasks 
> > run on each node, and whether the access patterns and 
> > working set of the tasks is symmetric amongst each other - 
> > which is not a given at all.
> >
> > Say consider a database server that executes small and large 
> > queries over a large, memory-shared database, and has worker 
> > tasks to clients, to serve each query. Depending on the 
> > nature of the queries, interleaving can easily be the wrong 
> > thing to do.
> 
> The interleaving of memory areas that have an equal amount of 
> shared accesses from multiple nodes is essential to limit the 
> traffic on the interconnect and get top performance.

That is true only if the load is symmetric.

> I guess through that in a non HPC environment where you are 
> not interested in one specific load running at top speed 
> varying contention on the interconnect and memory busses are 
> acceptable. But this means that HPC loads cannot be auto 
> tuned.

I'm not against improving these workloads (at all) - I just 
pointed out that interleaving isn't necessarily the best 
placement strategy for 'large' workloads.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/