On 2/22/2011 8:20 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 09:47:26AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Andi Kleen wrote:
Add a alloc_page_vma_node that allows passing the "local" node in.
Use it in ksm to allocate copy pages on the same node as
the original as possible.
Why would that be useful? The shared page could be on a node that is not
near the process that maps the page. Would it not be better to allocate on
the node that is local to the process that maps the page?
This is what I was trying to understand. To me it looks like this is
making things worse. Following the "vma" advice like current code
The problem is: most people use local policy and for that the correct node
is the node that the memory got allocated on.
You cannot get that information from the vma because the vma just says
"local"
If you don't use that node the daemon will arbitarily destroy memory
locality.
In fact this has happened. This is really bad regression caused by THP.
Now full KSM locality is more difficult (obviously you can have a
conflict), but
keeping it on the original node is still the most predictable. At least
you won't
make anything worse for that process.
-Andi
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>