On Wed, 2011-12-07 at 09:42 +0800, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Shaohua Li wrote: > > > based on the allocation size, right? I did consider it. It would be easy to > > implement this. Note even without my patch we have the issue if allocation > > from one node is big order and small order from other node. And nobody > > complains the imbalance. This makes me think maybe people didn't care > > about the imbalance too much. > > > > Right, I certainly see what you're trying to do and I support it, however, > if we're going to add a userspace tunable then I think it would be better > implemented as a size. You can still get the functionality that you have > with your patch (just with a size of 0, the default, making every > allocation on the next node) but can also interleave on PAGE_SIZE, > HPAGE_SIZE, etc, increments. I think it would help for users who are > concerned about node symmetry for contention on the memory bus and it > would be a shame if someone needed to add a second tunable for that affect > if your tunable already has applications using it. sure, I can do this in next post. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>