On 01/30/2017 11:25 PM, John Hubbard wrote: > I also don't like having these policies hard-coded, and your 100x > example above helps clarify what can go wrong about it. It would be > nicer if, instead, we could better express the "distance" between nodes > (bandwidth, latency, relative to sysmem, perhaps), and let the NUMA > system figure out the Right Thing To Do. > > I realize that this is not quite possible with NUMA just yet, but I > wonder if that's a reasonable direction to go with this? In the end, I don't think the kernel can make the "right" decision very widely here. Intel's Xeon Phis have some high-bandwidth memory (MCDRAM) that evidently has a higher latency than DRAM. Given a plain malloc(), how is the kernel to know that the memory will be used for AVX-512 instructions that need lots of bandwidth vs. some random data structure that's latency-sensitive? In the end, I think all we can do is keep the kernel's existing default of "low latency to the CPU that allocated it", and let apps override when that policy doesn't fit them. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
