On 11/21/2013 10:38 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:18:44PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: >> For what it's worth, I'm pretty convinced that the numbers folks put in >> the SLIT tables are, at best, horribly inconsistent from system to >> system. At worst, they're utter fabrications not linked at all to the >> reality of the actual latencies. > > You mean the reported distances should probably be bigger on this > particular machine? Yeah, or smaller on the others that made us switch zone_reclaim_mode at the place where we do. > But even when correct, zone_reclaim_mode might not be the best > predictor. Just because it's not worth yet to invest direct reclaim > efforts to stay local does not mean that remote references are free. > > I'm currently running some tests with the below draft to see if this > would still leave us with enough fairness. Does the patch restore > performance even with zone_reclaim_mode disabled? Yeah, that at least works for the one test where it's been causing the most trouble. -- 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>