> Right. I like that behavior for my workload. (Although I currently > allocate huge pages -- when I wrote that code, THP interacted so badly > with pagecache that it was a non-starter. I think it's fixed now, > though.) In that case, it's probably best to just stick with current behavior, and leave the threshold at 1, unless we implement something like I discuss below. > In that case, I guess I misunderstood your description. Are saying > that, once any node accesses this many pages in the potential THP, > then the whole THP will be mapped? Well, right now, this patch completely gives up on mapping a THP if two different nodes take a page from our chunk before the threshold is hit, so I think you're mostly understanding it correctly. One thing we could consider is adding an option to map the THP on the node with the *most* references to the potential THP, instead of giving up on mapping the THP when multiple nodes reference it. That might be a good middle ground, but I can see some performance issues coming into play there if the threshold is set too high, since we'll have to move all the pages in the chunk to the node that hit the threshold. - Alex -- 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>