On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, Balbir Singh wrote: > * Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> [2010-10-08 10:45:16]: > > > On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, Balbir Singh wrote: > > > > > I am not sure if this makes sense, since RECLAIM_DISTANCE is supposed > > > to be a hardware parameter. Could you please help clarify what the > > > access latency of a node with RECLAIM_DISTANCE 20 to that of a node > > > with RECLAIM_DISTANCE 30 is? Has the hardware definition of reclaim > > > distance changed? > > > > 10 is the local distance. So 30 should be 3x the latency that a local > > access takes. > > > > Does this patch then imply that we should do zone_reclaim only for 3x > nodes and not 2x nodes as we did earlier. It implies that zone reclaim is going to be automatically enabled if the maximum latency to the memory farthest away is 3 times or more that of a local memory access. -- 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>