On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 09:13:37AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 25 May 2010, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:06:08AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > On Mon, 24 May 2010, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > > > Well I'm glad you've conceded that queues are useful for high > > > > performance computing, and that higher order allocations are not > > > > a free and unlimited resource. > > > > > > Ahem. I have never made any such claim and would never make them. And > > > "conceding" something ??? > > > > Well, you were quite vocal about the subject. > > I was always vocal about the huge amounts of queues and the complexity > coming with alien caches etc. The alien caches were introduced against my > objections on the development team that did the NUMA slab. But even SLUB > has "queues" as many have repeatedly pointed out. The queuing is > different though in order to minimize excessive NUMA queueing. IMHO the > NUMA design of SLAB has fundamental problems because it implements its own > "NUMAness" aside from the page allocator. And by the way I disagreed completely that this is a problem. And you never demonstrated that it is a problem. It's totally unproductive to say things like it implements its own "NUMAness" aside from the page allocator. I can say SLUB implements its own "numaness" because it is checking for objects matching NUMA requirements too. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>